Chemical Warfare 1919-1945

In a recent article about Marshal Pietro Badoglio of Italy, I noted that his overall record had a "blemish" for his use of poison gas in Abyssinia.* This brought a comment from a reader that the use of poison gas is more than a "blemish." First, I think that is a valid criticism, and my choice of words should have been better. Second, in answer to the reader's comment, I said I would do an article about poison gas. So, here it is. This is just some basic information, and it in no way means that I'm trying to excuse Badoglio or any others mentioned below, but it does give context to those times prior to and during World War Two.

Poison gas of various types was used on both sides in World War One. The use was so widespread and accepted, it would be virtually pointless to go into use during the war. After the war, however, there were attempts to outlaw the use of poison gas, but doing so was not an easy task, and lest we forget, the U.S. and certain allies invaded Iraq to find and destroy "weapons of mass destruction," including "poison gas." So the issue is still around all of these decades after the end of World War One.

One Winston Churchill favored the use of poison gas in Iraq in 1920 "against uncivilised tribes," as he called some people in that region.** Historians are divided over whether the British did in fact use poison gas in Iraq in 1920, and I won't debate the issue in this article. During World War Two (July 1944), Churchill, rebuking "morality," proposed using poison gas on German cities, noting those cities could be "drenched," and that, "if we do it (use poison gas), let us do it one hundred percent." The matter was dropped due to fear of retaliation by Germany.

The Spaniards used mustard gas in Spanish Morocco in the mid 1920s against Berber rebels.*** The Japanese used mustard gas and other agents in China in late 1930s. The Nazis and the Allies both feared each other would use chemical warfare, but fear of massive retaliation by the other side kept poison gas from being used, although it was available in quantity to both sides. Both sides had specially trained units for delivery of poison gas (aerial and artillery) as well as units trained in decontamination of sites if poison gas had been used. The United States had been reluctant for decades to sign treaties banning chemical weapons, citing mistrust of other nations (mainly the Soviet Union) and the need to have a deterrent; that is, the ability to retaliate against any nation that used chemical weapons against the U.S. It wasn't until 1997 that a United Nations treaty on chemical weapons was finally ratified by the U.S. Some weapons were destroyed by the U.S. and other nations, but further such actions have been postponed, as the issue of how to safely destroy chemical weapons was debated, and also, the idea of a deterrent has remained an issue.

* The link to the article is: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/03/marshal-badoglio-of-italy.html

** The general area of modern Iraq was called Mesopotamia at that time, and it was under British control. An uprising against British rule by some elements of the population took place in 1920.

*** Morocco was then divided between Spain and France as "Spanish Morocco" and "French Morocco." The Berbers are an indigenous people of many parts of North Africa, not just Morocco. They have often, but not always, been nomadic.

WORD HISTORY:
Loss-This word goes back to Indo European "leu" or "lu," which had the notion of "undo, loosen, separate." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "lausam," with the same basic meanings. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "los," a noun which meant "loss," in the sense "total loss, destruction." Whether this then became modern "loss," which usually has a much less drastic meaning, is unclear. Some believe "los" died out with its place taken in the 1300s by its close relative "lost," the participle form of "lose,"^ and that this then became "loss." It is certainly possible that "los" remained, but that it was not in common use among more educated people, and that, influenced by the toned down meaning of "lost," it became modern "loss," which has relatives in the other Germanic languages, but I will cover them with some of the other related words to come.

^ "Loss" is closely related to a number of other words: "lose," "loose," "lorn" (the second part of 'forlorn'), and the "less" part of words like "homeless," "spotless," etc. These close relatives of "loss" will be covered in the next few articles, and it can all get quite confusing.