New-York tribune., 1921-10-23
P olson Gas Warfare
Comments by Major de Bles in Reply
to a "Quarterdeck" Article

70 the Editor IF The Tribune.
Sir: In last Sundays Tribune GUAR
deck accuses me unjust'y of "con-
asmaing chemists" and of forgetting
that chemists saved us from the effects
ai gas. never said or thought such
thing condemned the research work
II chemists in the direction of the in
vention of new and deadlier gases
ior attack, not for inventing defenses
against gases used by cthers.
Nor am alone in condemning the
rss Of gas in warfare. meaning by this
the inhiction of pain or death in war
BY means of poison gas.
The British Association for the Ad-
Fsneement of Science. the recognized
,snior scientific body in the world.
aud the League OF Nations have both
:oademaed it--that is TO say. chemical
research for gases of attack-within
the last few weeks,
Again, with due respect TO General
Fries. we know that mustard gas was
BOT intended as a fatal gas. as we're
chlorine and phosgene. nor were they
ever used in form ten times more
powerful than chlorine" whatever that
nay mean. 1t is matter of common
knowledge to any one who, like myself,
ass had cvoar;apoo or oO1cn~ 90 ,x,a "
ARE that mustard gas is "vesicant. ;"
mat Is ell it is. That is why the men
u Edgewood Arsenal. who have been
sassed scores Of times" to quote Gen
srlal Fries, feel no unpleasant after
elects. Had they been gassed once,
irrespective of the other nineteen
ames. with chlorine or phosgene the
Alter effects would be less easily sup
ported.
The statement that the Germans sur-
rendered because of their knowledge
" sne immense stocks of gas we pos
ss'sed is without foundation. The
'stman surrender is fully explained
tne one important point that their
sssfai line OF communication was cut
nd their northern and southern armies
'sis divided in consequence by the i'm
ss'saoie forests of the Ardennes.
Vuarterdeck" says have CONDEMNED
~ use Of q comparatively harmless
~ .cniorine, save the mark!), justi-
a'' the use OF mustard gas, ten times
s.s'e powerful, proved the efficacy of
Hspafedness and then advocated I'M
ssparedness." Did General Fries say
ass mustard gas is ten times more
"saay than chlorine? Did he not
amer say phcsgene was?
u'N does Quarterback" prove the
- mat mustard gas is SO much more
Nstiul than the comparatively harm
~ chlorine? Does he realize that
'a.'ne accounted for S5 per cent Of
as' according to General Fries's fig
W. {, while mustard gas fatal casual
~ we're per cent?
! i, me contradict the statement that
'ne does not lurk in trenches and
sa''es as mustard gas does. If
'srdeck" had had experience of it
!. - shell-holes of Ypres and Hooge
.. as in 1915 and 1916 he would
'y not make a statemaut that
+. man who has seen it must gecog-
y a erroneous.
w.. !" the statement that advocate
M ,afsdnsss. may l say that IN some
4 ssures have done just exactly
a. spDosite- u Dos Passossism and de
] i s' a'ssssther run hand in hand.
NV ~ ! say again the invention and
,sssore Of new gases for offensive
4 ~ ,,;iet US make it clear--is .
Nss s against humanity, as Sir Edward
- 80, ss, q the British Association, put
s'le sss.s.l the preparation ci masks for
s.... without knowing against what
~ WILL be used, is distinct