Chapter 2

HISTORY OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE

JEFFERY K. SMART, M.A. ^*

INTRODUCTION

PRE–WORLD WAR I DEVELOPMENTS

WORLD WAR I

THE 1920s: THE LEAN YEARS

THE 1930s: THE GROWING THREAT OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

THE 1940s: WORLD WAR II AND THE NUCLEAR AGE

THE 1950s: HEYDAY OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS

THE 1960s: DECADE OF TURMOIL

THE 1970s: THE NEAR END OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS

THE 1980s: THE RETURN OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS

THE 1990s: THE THREAT MATERIALIZES

SUMMARY

* Command Historian, U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5423

INTRODUCTION

     Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term “chemical warfare,” first used in 1917, as “tactical warfare using incendiary mixtures, smokes, or irritant, burning, poisonous, or asphyxiating gases.” A working definition of a chemical agent is “a chemical which is intended for use in military operations to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate man because of its physiological effects. Excluded from consideration are riot control agents, chemical herbicides and smoke and flame materials.” ^1(p1-1) Chemical agents were usually divided into five categories: nerve agents, vesicants, choking agents, blood agents, and incapacitants.
     Webster’s dictionary likewise defines “biological warfare” as “warfare involving the use of living organisms (as disease germs) or their toxic products against men, animals, or plants.” A working definition of a biological agent is “a microorganism (or a toxin derived from it) which causes disease in man, plants or animals or causes deterioration of material.” ^2(p1-1) Biological warfare agents were normally divided into three categories: antipersonnel, antianimal, and antiplant.
      Prior to World War I, the United States had little knowledge about the potential of chemical and biological warfare. Particularly in terms of preparing soldiers for future wars, the possibility of chemical or biological warfare went virtually unnoticed by the U.S. Army. By the end of World War I, the situation had drastically changed. Chemical warfare had been used against and by American soldiers on the battlefield. Biological warfare had been used covertly on several fronts. In an effort to determine what had gone wrong with their planning and training, U.S. Army officers prepared a history of chemical and biological warfare. To their surprise, they found numerous documented cases of chemical and biological agents having been used or proposed to influence the outcome of a battle or campaign. In addition, they discovered that the technology to protect against chemical and biological agents already existed, and, in some cases, was superior to the equipment used during the war. In hindsight, these officers realized that the army had failed to recognize and prepare for these two already existing types of warfare.
     [This chapter focuses primarily on the development of chemical and biological weapons and countermeasures to them, thus setting the stage for Chapter 3, Historical Aspects of Medical Defense Against Chemical Warfare, which concentrates on medical aspects of chemical warfare. To avoid excessive duplication of material, protective equipment of the modern era is illustrated in Chapter 16, Chemical Defense Equipment.—Eds.]

PRE–WORLD WAR I DEVELOPMENTS

The chemical agents first used in combat during World War I were, for the most part, not recent discoveries. Most were 18th- and 19th-century discoveries. For example, Carl Scheele, a Swedish chemist, was credited with the discovery of chlorine in 1774. He also determined the properties and composition of hydrogen cyanide in 1782. Comte Claude Louis Berthollet, a French chemist, synthesized cyanogen chloride in 1802. Sir Humphry Davy, a British chemist, synthesized phosgene in 1812. Dichloroethylsulfide (commonly known as mustard agent) was synthesized in 1822, again in 1854, and finally fully identified by Victor Meyer in 1886. John Stenhouse, a Scotch chemist and inventor, synthesized chloropicrin in 1848.³
Many biological agents were naturally occurring diseases thousands of years old. Others were generally discovered or recognized in the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, plague was recognized about 3,000 years ago. Smallpox was known in China as early as 1122 BC. Yellow fever was first described in the 1600s. Carlos Finlay, a Cuban biologist, identified mosquitoes as the primary carrier of yellow fever in 1881, while Walter Reed, a U.S. Army physician, proved the agent to be a virus. Casimir-Joseph Davaine isolated the causative organism of anthrax in 1863, followed by Robert Koch, a German scientist, who obtained a pure culture of anthrax in 1876. Koch also discovered the causative agent for cholera in 1883. Rocky Mountain spotted fever was first recognized in 1873; Howard T. Ricketts, an American pathologist, discovered the causative agent in 1907. Ricketts also identified the causative organism of typhus in 1909. F. Loffler and W. Schutz identified glanders in 1882. Sir David Bruce, a British pathologist, discovered the causative organism of brucellosis (it was named after him) in 1887. Ricin toxin was identified in 1889. Tularemia was first described in Tulare County, California (after which it was named), in 1911, and the causative agent was identified the next year.³

Early Chemical Weaponization Proposals and Usage

There are numerous examples of chemical weapons used or proposed during the course of a campaign or battle. The Chinese used arsenical smokes as early as 1000 BC. Solon of Athens put hellebore roots in the drinking water of Kirrha in 600 BC. In 429 and 424 BC, the Spartans and their allies used noxious smoke and flame against Athenian-allied cities during the Peloponnesian War. About 200 BC, the Carthaginians used Mandrake root left in wine to sedate the enemy. The Chinese designed stink bombs of poisonous smoke and shrapnel, along with a chemical mortar that fired cast-iron stink shells. Toxic smoke projectiles were designed and used during the Thirty Years War. Leonardo da Vinci proposed a powder of sulfide of arsenic and verdigris in the 15th century.³
During the Crimean War, there were several proposals to initiate chemical warfare to assist the Allies, particularly to solve the stalemate during the siege of Sevastopol. In 1854, Lyon Playfair, a British chemist, proposed a cacodyl cyanide artillery shell for use primarily against enemy ships. The British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal as “bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy.”^4(p22) Playfair’s response outlined a different concept, which was used to justify chemical warfare into the next century:

There was no sense in this objection. It is considered a legitimate mode of warfare to fill shells with molten metal which scatters among the enemy, and produced the most frightful modes of death. Why a poisonous vapor which would kill men without suffering is to be considered illegitimate warfare is incomprehensible. War is destruction, and the more destructive it can be made with the least suffering the sooner will be ended that barbarous method of protecting national rights. No doubt in time chemistry will be used to lessen the suffering of combatants, and even of criminals condemned to death.^4(pp22–23)

There were other proposals for chemical warfare during the Crimean War, but none were approved.
During the American Civil War, John Doughty, a New York City school teacher, was one of the first to propose the use of chlorine as a chemical warfare agent. He envisioned a 10-in. artillery shell filled with 2 to 3 qt of liquid chlorine that, when released, would produce many cubic feet of chlorine gas.

If the shell should explode over the heads of the enemy, the gas would, by its great specific gravity, rapidly fall to the ground: the men could not dodge it, and their first intimation of its presence would be by its inhalation, which would most effectually disqualify every man for service that was within the circle of its influence; rendering the disarming and capturing of them as certain as though both their legs were broken.^5(p27)

As to the moral question of using chemical weapons, he echoed the sentiments of Lyon Playfair a decade earlier:

As to the moral question involved in its introduction, I have, after watching the progress of events during the last eight months with reference to it, arrived at the somewhat paradoxical conclusion, that its introduction would very much lessen the sanguinary character of the battlefield, and at the same time render conflicts more decisive in their results.^5(p33)

     Doughty’s plan was apparently never acted on, as it was probably presented to Brigadier General James W. Ripley, Chief of Ordnance, who was described as being congenitally immune to new ideas.⁵ A less practical concept, proposed the same year by Joseph Lott, was to fill a hand-pumped fire engine with chloroform to spray on enemy troops.⁶
      The1864 siege of Petersburg, Virginia, generated several chemical warfare proposals. Forrest Shepherd proposed mixing hydrochloric and sulfuric acids to create a toxic cloud to defeat the Confederates defending Petersburg.⁵ Lieutenant Colonel William W. Blackford, a Confederate engineer, designed a sulfur cartridge for use as a countertunnelling device.⁷ The Confederates also considered using Chinese stink bombs against the Union troops. Elsewhere, the same year, Union Army Captain E. C. Boynton proposed using a cacodyl glass grenade for ship-to-ship fighting.⁵ Other than possibly Blackford’s cartridge, none of the proposals were used on the battlefield.
     Two wars at the turn of the century also saw limited use of chemical weapons. During the Boer War, British troops fired picric acid–filled shells, although to little effect.⁸ During the Russo–Japanese War, which was closely observed by those who would plan World War I, Japanese soldiers threw arsenal rag torches into Russian trenches.³
     In 1887, the Germans apparently considered using lacrimators (tear agents) for military purposes. The French also began a rudimentary chemical warfare program with the development of a tear gas grenade containing ethyl bromoacetate, and proposals to fill artillery shells with chloropicrin.⁹

Early Biological Warfare Proposals and Usage

      There were many examples of proposed usage or actual use of biological weapons on the battlefield. Hannibal hurled venomous snakes onto the enemy ships of Pergamus at Eurymedon in 190 BC. Scythian archers used arrows dipped in blood and manure or decomposing bodies in 400 BC. The use of dead bodies as the carrier of the biological agent proved particularly effective against an enemy’s water supply. Barbarossa used this tactic at the battle of Tortona in 1155. De Mussis, a Mongol, catapulted bubonic plague–infected bodies into Caffa in 1346. The Spanish tried wine infected with leprosy patients’ blood against the French near Naples in 1495. One of the more unique attempts at biological warfare was initiated in 1650 by Siemenowics, a Polish artillery general, who put saliva from rabid dogs into hollow spheres for firing against his enemies. The Russians cast plague-infected bodies into Swedish-held Reval, Estonia, in 1710.
      The proposed use of biological weapons was not limited to Europe and Asia. In 1763, during Pontiac’s Rebellion in New England, Colonel Henry Bouquet, a British officer, proposed giving the Indians at Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania, blankets infected with smallpox. The disease, whether purposely disseminated or not, proved devastating to the Native American population. A similar plan was executed in 1785, when Tunisians threw plague-infected clothing into La Calle, held by the Christians.
     The 19th-century wars continued the same trend. In 1861, Union troops advancing south into Maryland and other border states were warned not to eat or drink anything provided by unknown civilians for fear of being poisoned. Despite the warnings, there were numerous cases where soldiers thought they had been poisoned after eating or drinking. Confederates retreating in Mississippi in 1863 left dead animals in wells and ponds to deny water sources to the Union troops.
     A more carefully planned use of biological weapons was attempted by Dr. Luke Blackburn, a future governor of Kentucky, who attempted to infect clothing with smallpox and yellow fever and then sell it to unsuspecting Union troops. At least one Union officer’s obituary stated that he died of smallpox attributed to Blackburn’s scheme. Yellow fever, however, could not be transferred in this manner. Since more soldiers died of disease during the Civil War than were killed on the battlefield, the effectiveness of Blackburn’s work was difficult to judge.
     Biological agents were also considered for antianimal weapons during the 19th century. Louis Pasteur, the French chemist and biologist usually recognized for his humanitarian accomplishments, also experimented with the use of salmonella as an agent to exterminate rats. Others successfully used chicken cholera to exterminate rabbits and dysentery to kill grasshoppers.³

Early Protective Devices

Parallel to the development and use of chemical and biological weapons was the design of protective equipment for use against toxic chemicals and biological agents. Although conventional protective masks started appearing in the 19th century, the earliest recorded mask proposal was written by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. He envisioned a fine cloth dipped in water for defense against a sulfide of arsenic and verdigris powder he was proposing for a toxic weapon.¹⁰

Fig. 2-1. Theodore A. Hoffman patented this respirator in 1866. It is representative of the already developing protective mask designs of the post–American Civil War era. Ironically, these masks were superior to the ad hoc emergency masks used by the Allies after the Germans began chemical warfare in World War I. Reprinted from US Patent No. 58,255; 25 Sep 1866.

     The earliest known patent for a protective mask in the United States was filed by Lewis P. Haslett in 1847. His design included a moistened woolen fabric mask with an exhaust.¹¹ Benjamin I. Lane’s patent in 1850 included an air tank, goggles, and a rubber nose piece.¹² John Stenhouse developed a velvet-lined copper mask with a charcoal filter in 1854. The same year, George Wilson, a professor of technology at the University of Edinburgh, proposed that the British Board of Ordnance issue charcoal masks to soldiers to protect them from bombs employing suffocating or poisonous vapors during the Crimean War.¹³
     Between the American Civil War and World War I, there were numerous additional patents and designs for protective devices that were used in industry, for fire fighting, and in mines. These included an improved mask by Lane, which had a rubber facepiece with an exhaust; Theodore A.Hoffman’s mask, which was made of cotton with an elastic border to protect against aerosols (Figure 2-1); Samuel Barton’s mask with a metal-and-rubber facepiece, hood, goggles, and a charcoal filter; and Charles A. Ash’s mask, which added an air supply for use by miners.³

Attempts to Control Chemical and Biological Warfare

     Most of the early attempts to control chemical and biological warfare were bilateral or unilateral agreements directed at the use of poisons. These included the 1675 agreement between the French and Germans, signed in Strassburg, to ban the use of poison bullets, and U.S. Army General Order No.100, issued in 1863 during the American Civil War, which stated: “The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare.”^14(p687)
     The first international attempt to control chemical and biological weapons occurred in 1874, when the International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War was signed in Brussels and included a prohibition against poison or poisoned arms. The First Hague Peace Conference in 1899 also banned the use of poisons and was ratified by the United States. However, a separate proposition stated: “The contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating gasses.”^14(p685) Although 27 nations, including Germany, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Great Britain, eventually agreed to this additional statement, the United States delegation declined to approve it.
     Captain Alfred T. Mahan, a U.S. Navy delegate plenipotentiary, gave three reasons for opposing the additional restrictions: (1) currently used weapons were despised as cruel and inhumane when first introduced, (2) since there were no current chemical weapons stockpiles, it was too early to ban them, and (3) chemical weapons were not any more inhumane than any other weapon. The 1907 Second Hague Peace Conference retained the ban against poisons.¹⁵

WORLD WAR I

     When Europe was caught up in the crises of 1914 after the murder of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo and the declarations of war among Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Germany, France, Russia, and Great Britain that followed within a month, few observers expected the 19th-century chemical and biological paper proposals to be transformed into actual battlefield operations. The United States, remaining neutral under the policy of President Woodrow Wilson, certainly made no preparations for chemical and biological warfare.

Early Allied Chemical Warfare Plans

     With the outbreak of hostilities, both the French and the British apparently considered, investigated, and tested various chemical weapons at home and on the battlefield. During the German invasion of Belgium and France, the French used their ethyl bromoacetate grenades against the Germans, but with no noticeable effect. Although the grenades were considered of no military worth, the French apparently continued to consider the further use of tear agents against the Germans.
     In the early stages of the war, the British examined their own chemical technology for battlefield use. They initially investigated tear agents also but later turned to more toxic chemicals. In January 1915, several chemists at Imperial College successfully demonstrated ethyl iodoacetate as a tear gas to the War Office by gassing a representative.
     Another officer suggested using sulfur dioxide as a chemical weapon. Field Marshal Lord Kitchener, Secretary of State for War, was not interested in the concept for the army but suggested trying the navy. At the Admiralty, the idea found a sympathetic ear in Winston Churchill in March 1915. The suggestion included a plan to use a sulfur dioxide cloud against the Germans, screen the operation with smoke, and provide British troops a gas-proof helmet. Churchill declined to accept the sulfur dioxide plan but did put the officer in charge of a committee the next month to discuss the use of smoke on land and sea.⁹

Fig. 2-2. The German 150-mm T-Shell, which mixed xylyl bromide with an explosive charge. Note that the explosive charge was in the front and the chemical agent in the rear compartment. This design is similar to the one proposed in 1862 by John Doughty during the American Civil War (see Figure 3-1). Reprinted from Army War College. German Methods of Offense.Vol 1. In: Gas Warfare. Washington, DC: War Department; 1918: 59.

German Chemical Warfare Plans

     Possibly aware of the Allied interest in chemical weapons, the Germans also examined their own chemical technology for war applications. Their strong dye industry and the technical knowledge supplied by university professors in Berlin created the right combination for pursuing the concept of offensive chemical weapons. From the suggestion of Professor Walther Nernst, a physical chemist at the University of Berlin, or one of his colleagues, the Germans filled 105-mm shells with dianisidine chlorosulfate, a lung irritant, for use on the western front. To evade the 1899 international ban, the Germans also put shrapnel in the shell so the “sole” purpose was not gas dissemination.
     On 27 October 1914, the Germans fired 3,000 of these projectiles at the British near Neuve-Chapelle, but with no visible effects. The explosive aspect of the shells destroyed the chemical aspect. In fact, the British were apparently unaware that they were the victims of the first large-scale chemical projectile attack.
     The Germans continued researching chemical shells, and by November 1914, Dr. Hans von Tappen, assigned to the Heavy Artillery Department, designed a 150-mm howitzer shell containing 7 lb of xylyl bromide and a burster charge for splinter effect (Figure 2-2). The Germans moved these to the eastern front and experimented by firing more than 18,000 of the shells at Russian positions near Bolimov. In this case, the weather came to the aid of the Russians by providing cold temperatures that prevented the vaporization of the gas. The Germans tried the same shells again on the western front at Nieuport in March 1915 with equally unsuccessful results. ^9,14,16

Ypres, April 1915: The First Successful German Chemical Attack

     The concept of creating a toxic gas cloud from chemical cylinders was credited to Fritz Haber of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute of Berlin in late 1914. Owing to shortages of artillery shells, Haber thought a chemical gas cloud would negate the enemy’s earthworks without the use of high explosives. In addition, gas released directly from its storage cylinder would cover a far broader area than that dispersed from artillery shells. Haber selected chlorine for the gas since it was abundant in the German dye industry and would have no prolonged influence over the terrain.
     On 10 March 1915, under the guidance of Haber, Pioneer Regiment 35 placed 1,600 large and 4,130 small cylinders containing a total of 168 tons of chlorine opposite the Allied troops defending Ypres, Belgium. Haber also supplied the entire regiment with Draeger oxygen breathing sets, used in mine work, and a portion of the surrounding German infantry with small pads coated with sodium thiosulfate. Once the cylinders were in place, the Germans then waited for the winds to shift to a westerly direction.^9,14,17
     The Germans believed this means of attack, nonprojectile, was still within the guidelines of the Hague ban and hoped the cylinders would produce a potent cloud. The comments of General von Deimling, commanding general of the German 15th Corps in front of Ypres, written sometime after the war, however, perhaps better reflect the reason for initiating chemical warfare:

I must confess that the commission for poisoning the enemy, just as one poisons rats, struck me as it must be to any straight-forward soldier: it was repulsive to me. If, however, these poison gases would lead to the fall of Ypres, we would perhaps win a victory which might decide the entire war. In view of such a high goal, personal susceptibilities had to be silent.^18(p5)

Fig. 2-3. A typical German chemical cylinder set up and ready for discharge. The discharge from thousands of cylinders created the gas cloud. Reprinted from Army War College. German Methods of Offense. Vol 1. In: Gas Warfare. Washington, DC: War Department; 1918: 14.

On 22 April 1915, the Germans released the gas with mixed success. Initially, the Allied line simply fell apart. This was despite the fact that the Allies were aware of the pending gas attack, and British airmen had actually spotted the gas cylinders in the German trenches. The success of the attack was more significant than the Germans expected, and they were not ready to make significant gains despite the breakthrough. In addition, fresh Allied troops quickly restored a new line further back. The Allies claimed that 5,000 troops were killed in the attack, but this was probably an inflated number for propaganda purposes.¹⁸
The Germans used chlorine again at Ypres on 24 April 1915 and four more times during May 1915 (Figure 2-3). These additional attacks gained additional ground. As one British soldier stated:

Nobody appears to have realized the great danger that was threatening, it being considered that the enemy’s attempt would certainly fail and that whatever gas reached our line could be easily fanned away. No one felt in the slightest degree uneasy, and the terrible effect of the gas came to us as a great surprise.^19(p3)

     Another observer, in reflecting about the attack at Ypres and the first major use of chemical warfare, wrote: “The most stupendous change in warfare since gunpowder was invented had come, and come to stay. Let us not forget that.”^20(p3) Yet chemical warfare failed to be decisive and the German attack against Ypres was halted short of its objective.

Allied Chemical Warfare Retaliation

     That same month, the British and the French began planning to retaliate with chemical weapons. The Allied response to the chemical attacks evolved into three general categories:

   1. protective devices for the troops
   2. toxic gases of their own, and
   3. weapons to deliver the toxic gases to the enemy lines.

Shortly after the first chlorine attack, the Allies had primitive emergency protective masks. In September, they launched their own chlorine attack against the Germans at Loos (Figure 2-4). This initiated a

Fig. 2-4. A French cylinder attack on German trenches in Flanders. The critical importance of the wind is apparent. Condensation of water vapor caused the cloudlike appearance of the gas. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

deadly competition to develop better protective masks, more potent chemicals, and long-range delivery systems to more widely disperse the agents.
     The Germans quickly escalated to phosgene to replace the less-effective chlorine. In May 1916, the Germans started using trichloromethyl chloroformate (diphosgene), while the French tried hydrogen cyanide 2 months later and cyanogen chloride the same year. In July 1917, the Germans introduced mustard agent to provide a persistent vesicant that could attack the body in places not protected by gas masks. To further complicate defensive actions, both sides mixed agents and experimented with camouflage materials to prevent quick identification.³

German Biological Warfare Plans

     While the German chemical warfare program was extensively documented after the war, the German use of biological weapons during World War I unfortunately was poorly documented and much debated. Apparently in 1915, the Germans initiated covert biological warfare attacks against the Allies’ horses and cattle on both the western and the eastern fronts. In that year, they also allegedly used disease-producing bacteria to inoculate horses and cattle leaving U.S. ports for shipment to the Allies. Other attacks included a reported attempt to spread plague in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1915.^3,21
     The activities of German agents operating in the United States in 1915 came to light after the war. Erich von Steinmetz, a captain in the German navy, entered the United States disguised as a woman. He brought with him cultures of glanders to inoculate horses intended for the western front. After trying unsuccessfully, he posed as a researcher and took the cultures to a laboratory, where it was determined the cultures were dead.
     Anton Dilger was an American-educated surgeon who specialized in wound surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. After joining the German army in 1914, he suffered a nervous breakdown and was sent to his parents’ home in Virginia since the United States was still neutral in the war. At the request of the German government, he brought along strains of anthrax and glanders to begin a horse-inoculation program. With his brother Carl, he set up a laboratory in a private house in Chevy Chase, Maryland, to produce additional quantities of the bacteria.
     The bacteria from “Tony’s lab” were delivered to Captain Frederick Hinsch, who was using a house at the corner of Charles and Redwood Streets in Baltimore, Maryland. Hinsch inoculated horses in Baltimore that were awaiting shipment to Europe. Dilger also attempted to establish a second biological warfare laboratory in St. Louis, Missouri, but gave up after a cold winter killed the cultures. Although the impact of these German agents’ activities was not determined, the year 1915 is considered to be the beginning of 20th-century antianimal biological warfare.²²
     Additional biological attacks reportedly occurred throughout the war. In 1916, a German agent with intentions to spread a biological agent was arrested in Russia. German agents also tried to infect horses with glanders and cattle with anthrax in Bucharest in 1916. In 1917, Germany was accused of poisoning wells in the Somme area with human corpses, and dropping fruit, chocolate, and children’s toys infected with lethal bacteria into Romanian cities. German agents tried to infect horses with glanders and cattle with anthrax in France. A more successful attack was the infection of some 4,500 mules with glanders by a German agent in Mesopotamia. Another reported attack was with cholera in Italy. A 1929 report also accused the Germans of dropping bombs containing “plague” over British positions during the war. Many of these reports were of questionable authenticity and were vehemently denied by the Germans. As had happened during the American Civil War, the rampant spread of naturally occurring disease during World War I made the impact of planned biological warfare attacks impossible to determine.^3,21

Pre-War Interest in the United States in Chemical Warfare

The production and use of offensive chemical weapons in the European war did not go completely unnoticed in the United States. The combination of the use of chemical warfare at Ypres in April, followed by the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat off the Irish coast on 7 May 1915, shocked the nation. Americans began to take greater interest in the nature of warfare taking place in Europe and elsewhere. In May 1915, President Woodrow Wilson proposed that Germany halt chemical warfare in exchange for the British ending their blockade of neutral ports. Germany (and Great Britain) refused to comply.
Helpful suggestions from armchair scientists proved to be of little help to the army. The Army and Navy Register of 29 May 1915 contained the following report:

Among the recommendations forwarded to the Board of Ordnance and Fortifications there may be found many suggestions in favor of the asphyxiation process, mostly by the employment of gases contained in bombs to be thrown within the lines of the foe, with varying effects from peaceful slumber to instant death. One ingenious person suggested a bomb laden to its full capacity with snuff, which should be so evenly and thoroughly distributed that the enemy would be convulsed with sneezing, and in this period of paroxysm it would be possible to creep up on him and capture him in the throes of the convulsion. ^23(p12)

     By the fall of 1915, the War Department finally became interested in providing American troops with some form of a protective mask. By then, the British already had the P helmet, a flannel bag treated with sodium phenate and sodium hyposulfite that fitted over the head and was effective against chlorine and phosgene gases. The Germans were slightly ahead with a rubberized facepiece, unbreakable eyepieces, and a drum canister.²⁴
     In the United States, the mask project was assigned to the Army Medical Department. The Medical Department sent several medical officers to Europe as observers, but accomplished little else. Since the United States was not at war, no particular emphasis was placed on the project. Ultimately, all major participants in World War I attempted to develop protective masks (Figure 2-5).
      As relations with Germany declined over its unrestricted use of submarines, the war overtones did energize several key civilians in the U.S. government. One, Van H. Manning, Director of Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior, called together his division chiefs on 7 February 1917 to discuss how they could assist the government if the country was drawn into war. At this meeting, George S. Rice suggested that the bureau might turn its experience in mine gas and rescue apparatus toward the investigation of war gases and masks.
     The next day, Manning sent a letter to Dr. C. D.Walcott, Chairman of the Military Committee of the National Research Council (NRC), which had been created the year before, offering the Bureau’s services in creating a chemical warfare program for the army. On 12 February 1917, Dr. Walcott replied to Manning’s letter, stating that he would bring the matter to the attention of the Military Committee. Events, however, moved quicker than the Military Committee.
    On 2 April 1917, President Wilson addressed the U.S. Congress and called for a declaration of war. The next day, the Military Committee acted on Manning’s proposal and established the Subcommittee on Noxious Gases under the chairmanship of the director of the Bureau of Mines, and to include ordnance and medical officers from both the army and the navy, as well as two members of the Chemical Committee of the NRC. Their mission was to investigate noxious gases, the generation of chemical warfare agents, and the discovery of antidotes for war purposes. Three days later the United States declared war on Germany when congress approved the president’s request.^17,25,26

Fig. 2-5. A potpourri of World War I–vintage protective masks. This extraordinary photograph gives some indication of the great effort made by the warring parties to develop an effective and practical (and frequently unsuccessful) defense against the chemical warfare threat. Top row, left to right: U.S. Navy Mark I mask; U.S. Navy Mark II mask; U.S. CE mask; U.S. RFK mask; U.S. AT mask; U.S. KT mask; U.S. model 1919 mask. Middle row, left to right: British Black Veil mask; British PH helmet; British BR mask; French M2 mask; French artillery mask; French ARS mask. Bottom row, left to right: German mask; Russian mask; Italian mask; British Motor Corps mask; U.S. Rear Area mask; U.S. Connell mask. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

The United States Organizes for Chemical Warfare

     The new Subcommittee on Toxic Gases got off to a quick start. Within a short time, the subcommittee began organizing research into chemical agents at universities and industries across the nation, while mobilizing a large portion of the chemists in the country. This initial phase was the groundwork that later led to the establishment of the Chemical Warfare Service, the forerunner of the Chemical Corps. Thus the country’s civilian scientists, engineers, and chemistry professors rescued the army from its unpreparedness for chemical warfare.
     Eventually, the War Department also began to plan for chemical warfare. The Medical Department was assigned responsibility for chemical defense and the Ordnance Department responsibility for chemical munitions. The Corps of Engineers was designated to provide engineers to employ the new weapons. This diversified arrangement did not last long.
     When General John J. Pershing faced the task of organizing the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) in France in the summer of 1917, he decided to place responsibility for all phases of gas warfare in a single military service, and he recommended that the War Department at home do likewise. On 3 September 1917, the AEF established a centralized Gas Service under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Amos A. Fries.^25,26 The new organization had many hurdles to overcome. The troops had virtually no chemical warfare equipment of U.S. design and relied on the British and French to supply equipment from gas masks to munitions.

U.S. Troops Introduced to Chemical Warfare

     Despite the Allied support, the U.S. Army was not ready for chemical warfare. For example, on 26 February 1918, the Germans fired 150 to 250 phosgene and chloropicrin projectiles against the Americans near Bois de Remieres, France. The first attack occurred between 1:20 AM and 1:30 AM. There was a blinding flash of light and then several seconds elapsed before the projectiles reached their target. Some exploded in the air and others on the ground. A second and similar attack occurred about an hour later. The attack and its casualties were recorded by many observers, including the following selected accounts ²⁷:

A corporal saw the projectiles burst 10 ft in the air with flash and smoke. As the shells burst, he got his mask on without smelling any gas. When he took his mask off an hour and a half later, however, he could smell gas.
One private said the gas smelled like sour milk and had a sharp odor. It hurt his eyes and nose. Another private forgot to hold his breath while putting on his mask. The gas smelled sweet and he became sick to the stomach and his lungs hurt. Still, he kept his mask on for 4 hours.
One man in panic stampeded and knocked down two others who were adjusting their masks. The panicked man rushed down the trench screaming and made no attempt to put on his respirator; he died shortly after reaching the dressing station.
Another man threw himself in the bottom of the trench and began to scream. Two others, trying to adjust his respirator, had their own pulled off and were gassed. The screaming man was finally carried out of the area but died not long after.
An officer was gassed while shouting to the men to keep their respirators on.

The Americans suffered 85 casualties with 8 deaths, approximately 33% of their battalion. The problem was a lack of discipline. Because a good American mask was not yet available, the soldiers were issued two gas masks: a French M2, which was comfortable but not extremely effective; and a British small-box respirator (SBR), which was effective but uncomfortable with its scuba-type mouthpiece and nose clip. At the first sign of gas, some of the men could not find their gas masks in time. Others were able to get their SBRs on, but then either removed their masks too quickly or decided to switch to the more comfortable French mask and were gassed in the process.²⁷
An editorial later summed up the lesson learned from this first fiasco:

A stack of standing orders a mile high will not discipline an army. Neither can you so train men at the outbreak of hostilities that they can protect themselves against the gas which will be used by the enemy. We must train our Army to the last degree during peace.^28(p2)

Creation of the Chemical Warfare Service

In the spring of 1918, the U.S. government began centralizing gas warfare functions in the War Department under a senior Corps of Engineers officer,

Fig. 2-6. Major General William L. Sibert was the first commanding general of the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service. He had previously commanded the 1st Division in France in early 1918. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Major General William L. Sibert (Figure 2-6). When President Wilson transferred the research facilities that had been set up by the Bureau of Mines to the War Department, the stage was set for the inauguration of a new consolidated organization. On 28 June 1918, the War Department formally established the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) under Sibert as part of the National Army (ie, the wartime army, as distinguished from the regular army), with full responsibility for all facilities and functions relating to toxic chemicals.
     The CWS was organized into seven main divisions. The Research Division was located at American University, Washington, D. C. Most of the weapons and agent research was conducted by this division during the war. The Gas Defense Division was responsible for the production of gas masks and had a large plant in Long Island City, New York. The Gas Offense Division was responsible for the production of chemical agents and weapons, with its main facility located at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. The Development Division was responsible for charcoal production, and also pilot-plant work on mustard agent production. The Proving Ground Division was collocated with the Training Division at Lakehurst, New Jersey. The Medical Division was responsible for the pharmacological aspects of chemical defense.
     The offensive chemical unit for the AEF was the First Gas Regiment, formerly the 30th Engineers. This unit was organized at American University under the command of Colonel E. J. Atkisson in 1917, and was sent to France in early 1918.^17,25
     The U.S. Army finally had an organization that controlled offensive chemical production, defensive equipment production, training, testing, and basic research, along with a new chemical warfare unit, the First Gas Regiment, under one general. This organization helped lead the AEF to victory, although much of its work, including the construction of toxic gas–production and –filling plants and gas mask factories, was only partially completed by the end of the war.

Agent Production

     Agent production and shell-filling were initially assigned to the Ordnance Department and then to the CWS. The primary facility was Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, erected in the winter of 1917–1918. The plant was designed to have four shell-filling plants and four chemical agent production plants. The first shell-filling plant filled 75-mm, 155-mm, 4.7-in., and Livens projectiles with phosgene. A second filling plant was added to fill 155-mm shells with mustard agent or chloropicrin (Figure 2-7). Two additional shell-filling plants were started but not completed before the end of the war.
     The four agent production plants produced the highest priority agents thought to be required for the western front in 1917. These were chlorine, chloropicrin, phosgene, and mustard agent (Figure 2-8). By 1918, the first two were no longer critical agents, although chlorine was used in the production of phosgene. Over 935 tons of phosgene and 711 tons of mustard agent were produced at the arsenal by the end of the war. Government contractors also produced these four agents and Lewisite, named after Captain W. Lee Lewis, a member of the CWS Research Division. The Lewisite, however, never reached the front: it was dumped somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean (ie, sea dumped) after the armistice.^3,17,26

Chemical Weapons

     During the war, the CWS used foreign technology for offensive weapons. The initial mode of offensive chemical attack was the portable chemical cylinder, designed to hold 30 to 70 lb of agent. Soldiers simply opened a valve and hoped the wind continued to blow in the right direction. The resulting cloud could drift many miles behind enemy lines, or, if the wind changed, could gas friendly troops.

Fig. 2-7. Filling 75-mm artillery shells with mustard agent at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. Facilities designed to fill shells with chemical agents were notoriously hazardous. Anecdotal reports from mustard shell-filling plants indicated that over several months, the entire labor force could be expected to become ill. These workers’ apparent nonchalance to the hazards of mustard would not be tolerated by the occupational medicine standards of a later era (see Figure 2-31). Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Fig. 2-8. Interior view of the Mustard Agent Production Plant at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

The British improved on the delivery system, developing the Livens projector, an 8-in. mortarlike tube that shot or projected the cylinder into the enemy’s lines (Figures 2-9 and 2-10). The range was a respectable 1,700 yd, with a flight time of 25 seconds. There were several problems with the system.

Fig. 2-9. A battery of dug-in Livens projectors, with one gas shell and its propellant charge shown in the foreground. Electrically controlled salvo firing was the usual mode of operation. Emplacement was a slow process, and it limited the surprise factor for attack. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Fig. 2-10. Sectionalized view of a Livens projectile. The central tube contains a small explosive charge, which, when detonated by the contact fuze, breaks the shell and aids in the dissemination of the chemical agent. The usual weight of the chemical agent was 30 lb; the shell weighed an additional 30 lb. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Being electrically fired, a battery of Livens projectors required extensive preparation and could not be moved once set up. Normally, a battery could only be emplaced and fired once a day. This limited mobility required the element of surprise to prevent the Germans from taking counter actions.
British 4-in. trench mortars, called Stokes mortars (Figure 2-11), provided a solution to some of the problems with Livens projectors. The Stokes mortar did not require extensive preparation and could be moved as needed. Since it was not rifled, the range was only 1,200 yd, which meant about a 14-second flight time. The small size of the shell only held about 6 to 9 lb of agent, but experienced gunners could fire 25 rounds per minute. American troops used both Livens projectors and Stokes mortars during the war. Ordnance officers tried making their own Stokes mortars, but none reached the front before the end of the war.
In addition to the special chemical weapons, the CWS fired chemical rounds from 75-mm, 4.7-in., 155-mm, and larger-caliber guns. Many of these had ranges of 5 to 10 miles, with payloads of as much as 50 lb of agent. Owing to a shortage of shell parts and the late completion of U.S. shell-filling plants, U.S. troops primarily fired French phosgene and mustard agent rounds.^3,14,26

Biological Warfare Weapons

By 1918, the United States was apparently aware of the German biological warfare program, but the only agent examined was a toxin for retaliatory purposes. Ricin, derived from castor beans, could be disseminated two ways. The first involved adhering ricin to shrapnel bullets for containment in an artillery shell. The results of this work were stated in a technical report in 1918:

Fig. 2-11. A complete Stokes mortar with ammunition and accessories for firing. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

These experiments show two important points: (1) easily prepared preparations of ricin can be made to adhere to shrapnel bullets, (2) there is no loss in toxicity of firing and even with the crudest method of coating the bullets, not a very considerable loss of the material itself. ... It is not unreasonable to suppose that every wound inflicted by a shrapnel bullet coated with ricin would produce a serious casualty. ... Many wounds which would otherwise be trivial would be fatal.^29(p112)

The second involved the production of a ricin dust cloud, but due to limited amounts of ricin being produced and the inefficient delivery via the respiratory tract, little work seems to have been pursued in this means of dissemination. Although both approaches were laboratory tested, neither was perfected for use in Europe before the end of the war.²⁹

Protective Equipment

      The early unsuccessful efforts to produce a gas mask were resolved by CWS researchers at American University and other CWS research facilities. In the spring of 1918, the CWS issued the Richardson, Flory, and Kops (RFK) mask, which was an improved version of the British SBR. Over 3 million were produced for U.S. troops. Late in 1918, the CWS merged the best aspects of the RFK mask with a French design that eliminated the scuba-type mouthpiece. Designated the Kops Tissot Monro (KTM) mask, only 2,000 were produced before the end of the war.^14,30–32 Humans were not the only creatures requiring protection against chemical agents: the CWS developed protective masks for horses, dogs, and carrier pigeons.
     Other efforts at individual protection were not very successful. Sag Paste derived its name from Salve Antigas and was intended as an ointment that would prevent mustard agent burns. It was made of zinc stearate and vegetable oil and, for a short period, provided some protection against large doses of mustard agent. However, once the paste absorbed the mustard, injuries occurred. In addition, there was the problem of an individual’s having to apply the paste to all the parts of his body using his contaminated hands and while remaining on the battlefield. Over 900 tons of Sag Paste was shipped to the AEF during the war.^14,26
     The early concerns with collective protection primarily concentrated on providing a group of soldiers a gas-proof place in the trenches where they could remove the uncomfortable early gas masks. To accomplish this objective, studies were conducted on blankets to hang over dugout doorways, and various coatings or impregnates were examined for agent resistance. The result was a regular cotton blanket treated with dugout-blanket oil, a special heavy oil (Figure 2-12). Over 35,000 such blankets were shipped to the AEF.²⁶
      For ventilation of the dugout, there was the special antigas fan known as the Canvas Trench Fan. A 1918 War College gas warfare manual dedicated seven pages to the use of the fan, although all the fan really did was disperse the gas (Figure 2-13). Still, over 25,000 trench fans were sent to the front.^26,33

Decontamination

     There was also the problem of cleaning up the chemical agents after the gas attack. Mustard agent was a significant problem when it came to decontaminating the ground. The Germans apparently used chloride of lime to decontaminate the ground after an explosion at Germany’s first mustard agent factory in Adlershof. For the AEF, bleaching powder

Fig. 2-12. Early attempts at collective protection during World War I included the dugout blanket, which was used to cover the doorways to dugouts. Reprinted from Army War College. Methods of Defense Against Gas Attacks. Vol 2. In: Gas Warfare. Washington, DC: War Department; 1918: Figure 18.

(also known as chloride of lime or calcium hypochlorite) was the primary decontaminant during the war. Obtained from the bleaching industry, this white powder proved effective in neutralizing mustard agent on the ground. Almost 2,000 tons of bleaching powder was sent to the AEF during the war. As for mustard-contaminated clothing, the recommendation was to expose it to the open air for 48 hours or longer if the weather was cold. A quicker method was to leave the clothing inside a steam disinfecting chamber for 3 hours, but steam chambers were normally not available to front line troops.^14,26,34

Detection and Alarms

The CWS also studied the critical need for chemical agent detectors and alarms. Initially, World War I soldiers relied on their own senses (smell, and throat and nose irritation) to detect chemicals. Eventually, the CWS was able to produce various dyes that changed color when contaminated with mustard agent. Most of the formulas for the detector paints, however, were British, and the CWS had trouble duplicating their work.³⁵
At least one organic detector was also studied. One of the more interesting investigations was that of using snails as detectors. U.S. Army scientists reported that in the presence of mustard gas, snails waved their tentacles wildly in the air and then withdrew into their shells.

Fig. 2-13. Procedures for using the trench fan to remove chemical agents from trenches. The fan was a failure. Reprinted from Army War College. Methods of Defense Against Gas Attacks. Vol 2. In: Gas Warfare. Washington, DC: War Department; 1918: Figure 25.

When a prominent French physiologist was asked about this, he burst out laughing and said that French soldiers would eat the snails first. A test was conducted using French snails, but the conclusion was that the foreign snails were more conservative in their impulse to wave their tentacles.³⁶
Once chemical agents were detected, the alarm was sounded by horns, rattles, bells, or whatever loud noise was available. These alarms created problems of their own, as the rattles often sounded like machine-gun fire, and it was difficult to distinguish from other nonchemical alarms. By the end of the war, the ability to detect chemical agents and alert the troops was still in a very primitive state.

Gas Casualty Treatments

A month after the United States entered the war, the U.S. Army War College issued Memorandum on Gas Poisoning in Warfare with Notes on its Pathology and Treatment,³⁷ a short manual for medical officers written by a committee of consultant physicians and physiologists. The memorandum directed that “Rest is the most important point of all in the general treatment of gas casualties”^37(p18) and recommended using morphia to calm gassed soldiers who were too restless. Next in importance to rest were oxygen; protection from cold; special stimulants or drugs (particularly ampules of ammonia for inhalation, but also brandy in small sips, and pituitrin, administered hypodermically every 3 h); venesection (to relieve headaches); and removing “serous exudate” from the lungs (by drinking water and tickling the back of throat to produce vomiting; later treatments included potassium iodide, atropine, and steam tents with tincture benzoin compound). The manual concluded by admitting: “Knowledge on the various points discussed in this pamphlet is still far from being stable.”^37(p32)
The final version of the manual, issued in November 1918, made many changes to the original and reflected battlefield experience. For example, morphia was recognized as a “dangerous drug to use when the respiration is seriously affected. Its use should therefore be restricted to severe cases.”^38(p22) The most significant addition was information on mustard agent, which included sections for the treatment for the various organs exposed to the agent. For the skin, after cleaning the mustard agent off a soldier with soap and water,

[a] dusting powder of zinc oxide mixed with boracic acid, chalk, and starch, or a calamine lotion with lime water may be used after the bath to allay skin irritation. The blisters may be evacuated by pricking.^38(p34)

The delayed action of mustard agent required quick personnel decontamination actions. One solution was to bathe the soldiers thoroughly with soap and water within half an hour of mustard agent exposure. This was thought to prevent or greatly reduce the severity of the mustard burns. The army established degassing units that used a 5-ton truck with a 1,200-gal water tank, fitted with heaters and piping to connect it to portable showers. A second truck held extra uniforms. Two degassing units were assigned to each division. After the showers, the troops were give a drink of bicarbonate of soda water and then had their eyes, ears, mouths, and noses washed with the soda water.³⁸
Mustard agent was a significant problem for untrained soldiers. In September 1918, one Field Artillery general instructed his troops:

In view of the many casualties recently resulting in other commands from German mustard gas, each organization commander will take the following precautions: (a) Each soldier will place a small piece of soap in his gas mask container, (b) Each Chief of Section will keep constantly on hand in each gun-pit or gun position, two large bottles of soapy water—empty bottles may be purchased at wine shops from Battery Fund, (c) In case of a gas attack, and if opportunity permits, soapy water will be rubbed under the arms and between the legs around the scrotum, of soldiers affected, this serving to neutralize the pernicious effect of the gas. This effect will be explained to the soldiers of each organization, who can only hope to prevent becoming casualties through the strictest gas discipline.³⁹

     Despite the many warnings, mustard agent earned its designation of King of the Battlefield by killing approximately 600 U.S. soldiers and injuring over 27,000.⁴⁰

Lessons Learned

     The armistice of November 1918 ended the world’s first chemical and biological war. Of the approximately 26 million casualties suffered by the British, French, Russians, Italians, Germans, Austro-Hungarians, and the Americans, some 1 million were gas casualties. Of the total 272,000 U.S. casualties, over 72,000 were gas casualties, or about one fourth. Of the total U.S. gas casualties, approximately 1,200 either died in the hospital or were killed in action by gas exposure. There were no casualties or deaths attributed to biological warfare.⁴⁰
     Thus the U.S. Army completed its introduction to 20th-century chemical warfare. With the help of the CWS, the army successfully recovered from its early poor performance and survived repeated toxic chemical attacks against its troops. Likewise, by the end of the war, the First Gas Regiment and numerous U.S. artillery units successfully used toxic chemical agents in retaliation and during offensive operations.
     At the end of the war, the United States could proudly point to the best protective mask, abundant munitions, and trained troops. The CWS had 1,680 officers and 20,518 enlisted personnel controlling the army’s chemical warfare program.²⁵
     The only negative aspect was the dire prediction of future chemical wars, as expressed by one U.S. Army officer:

Gas was new and in an experimental stage throughout the war and hence the man who plans for future defense must consider the use of gas to have been in its infancy. He must draw very few lessons for the future use of gas based on past performances. He must only use those lessons as pointing the way and not as approaching a final result. The firing of steel as shell passed its zenith with the passing of the Argonne fight. Never again will the world see such a hail of steel on battlefields, but in its place will be concentrations of gas and high explosives as much greater than the World War as that was greater than the Civil War.^41(p4)

In contrast, Fritz Haber, the Nobel laureate chemist who, more than anyone else, was responsible for the development and fielding of chemical weapons for use by Kaiser Wilhelm II’s army, downplayed the importance of chemical warfare as a weapon of mass destruction after the surprise was gone. In an interview published in New York in 1921, he concluded: “Poison gas caused fewer deaths than bullets.”^42(p10)
General John J. Pershing summed up his opinion of the new chemical warfare shortly after the conclusion of World War I:

Whether or not gas will be employed in future wars is a matter of conjecture, but the effect is so deadly to the unprepared that we can never afford to neglect the question.^43(p77)

THE 1920s: THE LEAN YEARS

The Chemical Warfare Service Made Permanent

Following the successful conclusion of World War I, the U.S. Army almost immediately tried to forget everything it had learned during the war about being prepared for future chemical warfare. The first major concern of the new CWS was to ensure that it survived demobilization. The army had organized the CWS as a temporary war measure, a part of the National Army only, and that temporary existence was due to expire within 6 months after the end of the war. This 6 months was later extended to 30 June 1920. During hearings before the U.S. Congress, Secretary of War Newton D. Baker testified, “We ought to defend our army against a gas attack if somebody else uses it, but we ought not to initiate gas.”^44(p3) He and Chief of Staff General Peyton C. March both used this philosophy to recommend both abolishing the CWS and outlawing chemical warfare by a treaty.⁴⁵
Even General Sibert, when asked about the need for a permanent CWS and the possibility of chemical warfare in future wars, replied:

Based on its effectiveness and humaneness, [chemical warfare] certainly will be an important element in any future war unless the use of it should be prohibited by international agreement. As to the probability of such action, I cannot venture an opinion.^46(p87)

To persuade congress to keep the CWS, several prominent civilian and military leaders lobbied to include a permanent chemical warfare organization. Lieutenant Colonel Amos A. Fries, a CWS officer and one of the strongest proponents of a permanent organization, stressed the need for a central organization, one that covered all aspects of chemical warfare (Figure 2-14). He drew on the lessons learned from the previous war:

Had there been a Chemical Warfare Service in 1915 when the first gas attack was made, we would have been fully prepared with gases and masks, and the army would have been trained in its use. This would have saved thousands of gas cases, the war might easily have been shortened six months or even a year, and untold misery and wasted wealth might have been saved.^47(p4)

Fig. 2-14. Amos A. Fries, shown here as a major general, was chief of the Chemical Warfare Service between 1921 and 1929. “With his dynamic personality and extensive contacts in Congress and the chemical industry, he quite literally kept the CWS alive.” Quotation: Brown FJ. Chemical Warfare—A Study in Restraints. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1968: 130. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

He also stressed that both offensive and defensive research must be conducted:

Just as developments in masks have gone on in the past just so will they go in the future. Just as from time to time gases were found that broke down or penetrated existing masks, just so in the future will gases be found that will more or less break down or penetrate the best existing masks. Accordingly, for thorough preparation, mask development must be kept absolutely parallel with development in poisonous and irritating gases. Mask development cannot, however, be kept parallel unless those working on masks know exactly what is going on in the development of poisonous gases. Thus a nation that stops all investigation into poisonous gases cannot hope to be prepared on the defensive side should the time ever come when defense against gas is needed.^20(pp7–8)

Fries also disagreed with the premise that treaties could prevent chemical warfare:

Researches into poisonous gases cannot be suppressed. Why? Because they can be carried on in out-of-the-way cellar rooms, where complete plans may be worked out to change existing industrial chemical plants into full capacity poisonous gas plants on a fortnight’s notice, and who will be the wiser?^20(p3)

Although Fries was very persuasive and eloquent in his comments, a young lieutenant, who published the following poem in 1919, more graphically expressed the opinion of those who understood the nature of chemical warfare:

There is nothing in war more important than gas
The man who neglects it himself is an ass
The unit Commander whose training is slack
Might just as well stab all his men in the back.^{48(cover
iv)}

The chemical warfare specialists won the argument. On 1 July 1920, the CWS became a permanent part of the Regular Army. Its mission included development, procurement, and supply of all offensive and defensive chemical warfare material, together with similar functions in the fields of smoke and incendiary weapons. In addition, the CWS was made responsible for training the army in chemical warfare and for organizing, equipping, training, and employing special chemical troops (Figure 2-15).^25,49
Despite the encouragement of permanent status and surviving demobilization, the years after 1920 were lean (ie, austere) ones for the CWS, as indeed they were for the army as a whole. The CWS was

Fig. 2-15. The first temporary Chemical Warfare School building at Edgewood Arsenal, Md., shortly after the end of World War I. The school was later moved to a permanent structure. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

authorized only 100 Regular Army officers but never actually achieved that number. The low point was 64 in 1923. Enlisted strength dropped to a low of 261 in 1919 and averaged about 400 the rest of the decade. Civilian employees numbered fewer than 1,000. The low point in funding was in 1923, when the amount was $600,000.²⁵
     After 1919, almost all the work of the CWS moved to Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, with only the headquarters remaining in Washington, D.C. Edgewood became the center of training, stockpiling, and research and development.
     Initially, the CWS was authorized to train only its own troops in all aspects of chemical warfare, while the General Staff permitted only defensive training for other army elements (Figure 2-16). The CWS protested this limitation and finally in May 1930, the Judge Advocate General ruled that both offensive and defensive training were allowed for all troops.⁵⁰
     Leftover stocks of chemicals from World War I were deemed sufficient for the army’s stockpile. In 1922, to comply with the Limitation of Arms Conference, the War Department ordered that “[t]he filling of all projectiles and containers with poisonous gas will be discontinued, except for the limited number needed in perfecting gas-defense appliances.”⁵¹ The CWS was only allowed to continue limited research and development based on perceptions of future wars.^51,52

To improve its standing with the taxpayers and the growing pacifist movement, the CWS also expanded its research capabilities into nonmilitary projects. These special projects included such activities as preserving wooden dock structures (1923) and fighting boll weevils (1925–1927.^53–55

Fig. 2-16. Soldiers wearing protective clothing are firing 75-mm mustard agent shells at Edgewood Arsenal, Md., in 1928. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground.

New Chemical Weapons

In 1928, the CWS formalized the standardization of chemical agents. Seven chemical agents and smokes were selected as the most important. The seven, with their symbols, were mustard agent (HS), methyldifluorarsine (MD), diphenylaminechlorarsine (DM), chloroacetophenone (CN), titanium tetrachloride (FM), white phosphorus (WP), and hexachlorethane (HC). Phosgene (CG) and Lewisite (L) were considered of lesser importance. Chloropicrin (PS) and chlorine (Cl) were rated the least important.³
Delivery systems were also improved. As early as 1920, Captain Lewis M. McBride experimented with rifling the barrel of the Stokes mortar. In 1924, a Stokes mortar barrel was rifled and tested. In truing the inside diameter of the 4-in. barrel preparatory to rifling, the bore was enlarged to 4.2 in. in diameter. This work increased the range of the mortar from 1,100 yd to 2,400 yd. In 1928, the improved mortar was standardized as the M1 4.2-in. chemical mortar and became the CWS’s prized ground weapon for the delivery of toxic chemical agents as well as smoke and high explosives (Figures 2-17 and 2-18).²⁶

Fig.2-17. An experimental 4.2-in. chemical mortar, showing (1) the standard, (2) the barrel with the shock-absorbing mechanism, and (3) the tie rods connecting the standard to the baseplate. This weapon differed from the Stokes mortar, its predecessor, in that it was easier to set up and it was rifled; the spiral grooves can be seen on the inside of the barrel at its muzzle. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Fig. 2-18. The chemical weapons of the 1920s and 1930s. From left to right: the 75-mm mustard shell; the 4.2-in. white phosphorus shell; the M1 30-lb mustard bomb; the Mk II 155-mm mustard shell; the Livens phosgene projectile; and the Mk I portable chemical cylinder. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md

One much-discussed topic was the role that airplanes would take in the next chemical war. Fries predicted:

The dropping of gas bombs of all kinds upon assembly points, concentration camps, rest areas and the like, will be so fruitful a field for casualties and for wearing down the morale of armies in the future that it will certainly be done and done on the very first stroke of war.^56(pp4–5)

Fig. 2-19. A schematic diagram showing the M1 Service Gas Mask. The M1 eliminated the nose clip and mouthpiece of the box respirators of World War I vintage. By directing the incoming air over the eyepieces, it also helped eliminate lens fogging. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

To meet this need, the CWS standardized the M1 30-lb chemical bomb. It held only about 10 lb of agent owing to its thick shell. As a test of the use of airplanes in a chemical war, the CWS first demonstrated simulated chemical attacks against battleships in 1921.^3,57

New Protective Equipment

The CWS concentrated, however, on defensive work. After the war, the CWS continued working on the KTM mask, which became known as the Model 1919. In 1921, the mask officially became the M1 Service Gas Mask (Figure 2-19); it had a rubber facepiece and was available in five sizes.^30,58 The hope was to issue a protective mask to every soldier in the army. One proponent described the reason why:

To put the matter briefly, a modern army which enters on a campaign without respirators is doomed from the outset. It is asking to be attacked by gas, most certainly will be, and equally certainly will be destroyed. A soldier without a respirator is an anachronism.^59(p129)

Biological Warfare Program

During the early 1920s, there were several suggestions from within the CWS that it undertake more research into biological agents. Fries, who had been promoted to major general and had replaced Sibert as the Chief Chemical Officer in 1920, however, decided it was not profitable to do so. In 1926, he wrote in the annual report of the CWS:

The subject of bacteriological warfare is one which has received considerable notice recently. It should be pointed out in the first place that no method for the effective use of germs in warfare is known. It has never been tried to any extent so far as is known.^60(p8)

The new League of Nations, which had been quoted in the annual report, concluded the same:

[Biological] warfare would have little effect on the actual issue of a war because of protective methods available; that filtering and chlorinating drinking water, vaccination, inoculation, and other methods known to preventive medicine, would so circumscribe its effect as to make it practically ineffective.^60(p8)

Chemical–Biological Warfare Use and Plans

     Throughout the 1920s, rumors of chemical warfare attacks plagued the world. Besides the United States and the major World War I powers, several other countries began to develop a chemical warfare capability. Some of the countries with chemical weapons used them in their military operations. During the Russian Civil War and Allied intervention in the early 1920s, both sides had chemical weapons, and there were reports of isolated chemical attacks. Later accounts^3,21 accused the British, French, and Spanish of using chemical warfare at various times during the 1920s. One country in particular attracted the attention of the United States. As early as 1924, the CWS began to take note of the growing Italian chemical warfare capability. That was the year the Italians established the Centro Chemico Militaire, a unified chemical warfare service and began production of chemical agents.^61–63
     Two events related to biological warfare probably went unnoticed by the Americans. In 1928, a Japanese officer by the name of Shiro Ishii began promoting biological warfare research and took a 2-year tour of foreign research establishments, including the United States. After his tour, he concluded that all the major powers were secretly researching biological warfare. Although his conclusion was erroneous for the United States, it was probably accurate for the Soviet Union. In 1929, the Soviets reportedly established a biological warfare facility north of the Caspian Sea. ^3,21,64,65
     While the CWS struggled to survive and keep the army ready for a chemical war, international attempts were made to prohibit chemical warfare. The Treaty of Versailles, completed in 1919, prohibited Germany from producing, storing, importing, or using poisons, chemicals, and other chemical weapons. The treaty was not ratified by the United States. A separate treaty with Germany did not mention chemical warfare, but the United States agreed to comply with the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles in relation to poisonous gases.
     Although the new League of Nations concluded in 1920 that chemical warfare was no more cruel than any other method of warfare used by combatants, the Limitation of Arms Conference, held in Washington, D. C., in 1922, banned the use of poisonous gases except in retaliation. The United States ratified the limitation, but France declined to ratify the treaty and therefore it was never implemented.
     This unsuccessful attempt was followed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which was signed by 28 countries, including the United States. This agreement condemned the use of gas and bacteriological warfare. The U.S. Senate, however, refused to ratify the Protocol and remained uncommitted by it. The senate had apparently decided that chemical warfare was no more cruel than any other weapon and therefore should not be banned. The general policy of the U.S. government, however, still tended toward the discouragement of all aspects of chemical warfare, but was tempered by a policy of preparedness should chemical warfare occur again.^66–69

THE 1930s: THE GROWING THREAT OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

Further international attempts to ban not only the use of chemical weapons but also all research, production, and training caused a response that developed into a new U.S. policy on chemical warfare. The U.S. Army Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur, stated the policy in a letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson in 1932:

In the matter of chemical warfare, the War Department opposes any restrictions whereby the United States would refrain from all peacetime preparation or manufacture of gases, means of launching gases, or defensive gas material. No provision that would require the disposal or destruction of any existing installation of our Chemical Warfare Service or of any stocks of chemical warfare material should be incorporated in an agreement. Furthermore, the existence of a War Department agency engaged in experimentation and manufacture of chemical warfare materials, and in training for unforeseen contingencies is deemed essential to our national defense.^45(p118)

There were no other major attempts to ban chemical and biological warfare during the 1930s.

New Chemical Agents and Weapons

The CWS continued to maintain stockpiles of the key World War I–chemical agents during the 1930s. Captain Alden H. Waitt, then Secretary of the Chemical Warfare School at Edgewood Arsenal and later Chief Chemical Officer, summed up the CWS’s planning for the next war in 1935:

Foreign writers agree that at least for the first few months of any war, should one occur within a few years, the gases that were known at the end of the World War would be used. Of these, the opinion is unanimous that mustard gas would be the principal agent and the most valuable. Opinion in the United States coincides with this.^70(p285)

> In 1937, Edgewood Arsenal rehabilitated their mustard agent plant and produced 154 tons of mustard agent to increase their stockpile (Figure 2-20). The same year, the phosgene plant was renovated for additional production, and the CWS changed phosgene from substitute standard to standard (Figure 2-21).⁷¹

Fig. 2-20. The Mustard Manufacturing Plant at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

The result of the CWS’s confidence in these selected agents was that the CWS missed the development of several key new agents. Waitt wrote:

Occasionally a statement appears in the newspapers that a new gas has been discovered superior to any previously known. Such statements make good copy, but not one of them has ever been verified. Today no gases are known that are superior to those known during the World War. It is unlikely that information about a new gas will be obtained until it is used in war. The chemical agent is too well adapted to secrecy. The only insurance against surprise by a new gas is painstaking research to find for ourselves every chemical agent that offers promise for offensive or defensive uses. It seems fairly safe to say that today mustard gas is still the king of warfare chemicals and to base our tactical schemes on that agent as a type.^70(p285)

     Yet already the reign of mustard agent was ending. In 1931, Kyle Ward, Jr., published an article describing nitrogen mustard, a vesicant agent with no odor. The CWS investigated the new substance and found it to be less vesicant than sulfur mustard. The U.S. Army eventually standardized nitrogen mustard as HN-1, although it was the Germans who took a great interest in the new vesicant.³
     In 1936, German chemist Dr. Gerhart Schrader of I. G. Farbon Company discovered an organophosphorus insecticide, which was reported to the Chemical Weapons Section of the German military prior to patenting. The military was impressed with the effects of the compound on the nervous system and classified the project for further research. The military assigned various names to the new substance, including Trilon-83 and Le 100, but tabun was the name that stuck. After World War II, the CWS designated it GA, for “German” agent “A.”
     About 2 years later, Schrader developed a similar agent, designated T-144 or Trilon-46 and eventually called sarin, which was reportedly 5 times as toxic as tabun. The United States later designated this agent GB. The Germans assigned a large number of chemists to work on these new nerve agents and began building a pilot plant for production in 1939, the year World War II started.^3,72,73

Fig. 2-21. Interior view of the Phosgene Production Plant at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. The low level of chemical engineering technology apparent in this World War II-era photograph is relevant to the problem of chemical agent proliferation today. Elaborate, expensive equipment is not required for mass-producing the less-sophisticated chemical agents. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

During the 1930s, the CWS stockpiled the chemical weapons used by World War I ground forces in preparation for a future war. These were primarily Livens projectors, Stokes mortars, and portable cylinders. In addition, there were chemical shells for 75-mm, 105-mm, and 155-mm artillery pieces (Figures 2-22 and 2-23).

Fig. 2-22. A Field Artillery unit prepared for chemical war. Both the men and the horses required protection against the agents. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

Fig. 2-23. Battery D, 6th Field Artillery, firing a 75-mm gun while in protective clothing at Edgewood Arsenal, Md., in 1936. The overgarments of the 1920s were made of rubberized cloth or cloth impregnated with substances such as linseed oil. These overgarments were heavier and hotter than today’s protective clothing. Note the lack of overboots. Photograph: Chemical and Biological Defense Command Historical Research and Response Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.