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.

The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Eight

This was first published in early 2012.

"Polarization of the Spanish Civil War" Part 3

Catalonia, a more industrialized region of northeastern Spain, was granted regional autonomy by the government of the Spanish Republic. The region had many union people and strong socialist sentiments.* The Basque region** of northern Spain also sought local autonomy (some wanted outright independence), and these developments brought serious concern from the army leadership, which was fearful of Spain literally breaking up into independent entities, or with regional governments being stronger than the national government.*** The Spanish army had traditionally tried to keep Spain stable and many people looked to it to provide guidance.

The army officer corps, or more precisely, a substantial part of it, saw the establishment of the republic with a bit of apprehension. Right wing newspapers inflamed fears in many in the army leadership and other Spaniards with a bombardment (no pun intended) of stories proclaiming how the Republicans (not to be confused with America's Republicans) were against the Church, private property, and the army. While there was truth in these basic assertions, there were also blatant falsehoods repeated over and over to prove their point.**** For instance, the army officers were required to swear an oath to the republic (they had previously sworn such an oath to the monarchy), but some (few) were so opposed to the republic, they chose to give up their army positions. The right wing press told the Spanish public that the officers were forced out, without pay, and that they would be destitute. The truth was, the officers were put on "reserve" status, and were accordingly paid. Discrediting out and out lies can be very difficult, however, and those on the right continued to believe the stories, and repeat them. To make matters worse, the government minister overseeing the army wanted officers to make a decision about taking the oath quickly, or face the possibility of not receiving pay if they chose to leave their positions. This gave a certain validity to the right wing charge that officers were being "forced out" and that they would be destitute. Whether the minister realized his mistake, or just decided against implementing it, no officers were deprived of pay (based upon what I have read). Further, some army officers were arrested for the role they played in the dictatorship of the 1920s, primarily in North Africa.***** All of this made army officers uneasy about the new republic.

And still further, the government wanted a review of officer promotions granted during the dictatorship. While not all promotions were reviewed, or reversed, the anger in the officer corps continued to build, especially since pro-Republican officers (there were some) were often given special treatment and advancements. Numerous army installations were closed, as the new government tried to scale back on army outlays, although some senior officers were put into retirement with full pay (a major expense for the government). The reduction in the army's size meant fewer promotions for ambitious officers, and this too added to anger and frustration within the officer corps.

* Keep in mind, workers around the world didn't form unions because they one day were sitting around with nothing to do and one of them said, "Gee, what can we do to bedevil wealthy business people." Mistreatment by business owners, low wages and horrible working conditions made workers depend upon one another for help and support, and the idea of joining together to force better conditions and wages was seen as an effective way to add balance to business-labor relations. I used the word "force," because, let's be honest, most owners were NOT going to just give workers better pay and conditions, because it was the right thing to do, no matter how much religion they professed to have. Forget the religion! All of this was about one thing, for better or for worse, MONEY! Remember for example, the Russian Tsars (Czars, alternate spelling) professed Christian Orthodoxy, and the Spanish monarchy was vastly entangled with Christianity (after the Reformation, that specifically being Roman Catholicism), but that didn't make the leaders try to help the vast majority of their people, who were very poor. No, instead they chose to support the upper classes and business interests in a one-sided manner. Americans can draw their own conclusions as to any resemblance to a particular philosophy present in this country.

** The Basques are a people "thought" to have inhabited parts of western Europe prior to the arrival of Indo European speakers. Their language is not Indo European, and attempts to connect it to other non Indo European languages have left many questions, although it "appears" to be a part of "Vasconic," an ancient language family that was eventually replaced, with a few exceptions, by Indo European speakers. The origin of the Basques and their language is a highly controversial subject, but "apparently" the Basques are a pretty unique people among the modern peoples of the world, and they can "bask" in their uniqueness ... hm, okay, so that wasn't such a good one. The Basques inhabit part of northern Spain and part of southern France, both in the general area of the Pyrenees Mountains. Quite a number of Basques emigrated to America, primarily in the mid 1800s.

*** For those who followed my extensive series, "The German Question," you should recall the problems of the "old" German Empire (The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation), where the individual German states tended to be more powerful than the collective empire.

**** I say there was truth in the basic assertions, because some of the more extreme elements on the left were not shy in saying these things, and they actually wanted a major shake-up in Spanish society. Other parts of the coalition were simply left-leaning, and they did not favor truly radical measures. A big problem for the new left-leaning government of the republic was, when a program favoring more "equality" was put forth, the "haves" of society used such talk to scare the hell out of the "lesser haves," that some of their more modest means would be distributed to the "have nots." We've seen this tactic used in America over the last couple of years, as super rich right wingers have helped finance advertisements and rallies trying to scare middle-class Americans into opposing Obama and Democrats, although with mixed political results, as insurgent Republicans (the American variety) won a majority in the midterm elections, but President Obama remains "fairly" popular (polls show him near 50% positive), as the fervor of these Republicans has called their judgment into question, and Obama has had time to demonstrate that he's not proposing or implementing extremist programs; although the jury is still out on an overall verdict, which will come in the 2012 elections. The interesting thing is, whatever the verdict, it is apt to have more to do with the overall economy than attempts to paint the President as some radical leader.

***** Spain possessed a part of what is now Morocco in North Africa; for some strange reason called, "Spanish Morocco." (Hm, you don't think it was called that because it was a Spanish possession, do you? Hm, maybe; after all, the part possessed by France was called "French Morocco." That must be the answer, darn! Just give me time and I can figure things out.) Anyway, there were periodic rebellions in Spanish Morocco, and the Spanish troops there were pretty ruthless in their suppression of these rebels. A core of the Spanish troops in Morocco became well trained and were led by Francisco Franco. They would later lead the attack on the republic when the civil war started.

WORD HISTORY:
Coup-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown. It traces back to Greek "kolaphos," which meant "slap." Latin borrowed the word as "colaphus," with the meaning "a punch or blow (usually to the head)." This then later became "colpus," "a blow or stroke." Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited the word as "colp," which had the same basic meaning. English borrowed the word from French, or perhaps more likely from the altered form of French, Anglo-French, brought to England by the Norman invasion, although the word didn't really come into more common usage until the 1300s. Today the word is really a shortening of "coup d'etat," which developed in French in the mid 1800s for a "sudden overthrow of a government; literally 'stroke of the state.' " It is also used in English in "coup d'grace;" which means "a final terminal blow," seemingly originally used when severely wounded people were put out of their misery, if you get my drift, although it has now come to mean "any blow that finishes off someone or something."