So cruel, yet so effective.

Originally posted by roffels11:

So cruel, yet so effective.

War is war.

oh boy im on the edge of my seat with this campaign. Sometimes I can't sleep at night because I wonder who is ahead. Lets see what happens on April 30th.

pretty bold of the guys in the picture to not wear gas masks

German were great inventors during WWI

Originally posted by 501BT | Naio_Piaio:

Originally posted by Njawl:

It should be known that the French was the first to use gas during WW1

Not poison gas.

The difference is only the amount of exposure, tear gas can still kill and the french had the option to retreat from the trenches and not breathe the gas either. The moment the french used an airborne harmful chemical agent they broke the treaty.

Originally posted by Nightmare799:

Originally posted by 501BT | Naio_Piaio:

Not poison gas.

The difference is only the amount of exposure, tear gas can still kill and the french had the option to retreat from the trenches and not breathe the gas either. The moment the french used an airborne harmful chemical agent they broke the treaty.

"None of the belligerents believed that the use of irritant gases violated the Hague Convention of 1899 which prohibited the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare. Use of chemical weapons escalated during the war to lethal gases, after 1914 (during which only tear gas was used)."

I think if the Germans themselves believed that the use of an irritant gas like tear gas did not violate the Hague Convention, and then went on to develop Chlorine-based weapons like Green Cross, which very blatantly did, then you can accept it too.

So that guy opens it without using a gasmask?

Originally posted by Cpl. Burden R 3294:

Originally posted by Nightmare799:

The difference is only the amount of exposure, tear gas can still kill and the french had the option to retreat from the trenches and not breathe the gas either. The moment the french used an airborne harmful chemical agent they broke the treaty.

"None of the belligerents believed that the use of irritant gases violated the Hague Convention of 1899 which prohibited the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare. Use of chemical weapons escalated during the war to lethal gases, after 1914 (during which only tear gas was used)."

I think if the Germans themselves believed that the use of an irritant gas like tear gas did not violate the Hague Convention, and then went on to develop Chlorine-based weapons like Green Cross, which very blatantly did, then you can accept it too.

Yeah that's the wikipedia article, where is the source for that? Because to me it obviously sounds like the Germans saw the French use gas to flush out trenches and considered it a fair game from there on out.

''Use of tear gas in warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed.''

Also riddle me this then.

Originally posted by Nightmare799:

Yeah that's the wikipedia article, where is the source for that? Because to me it obviously sounds like the Germans saw the French use gas to flush out trenches and considered it a fair game from there on out.

''Use of tear gas in warfare, as with all other chemical weapons, was prohibited by the Geneva Protocol of 1925: it prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials", a treaty that most states have signed.''

Also riddle me this then.

At the point the French used it there was next to no actual trenches as it was still early war and mostly seemed to be the war of movement. There also doesn't seem to have actually been noticed by the Germans early on, but the actual amount of gas in the grenades was rather low, the only details I've been able to find is it is around 5 foot area of effect...which would make it rather easy to ignore.

1925, so 7 years after the war when experience had changed and they would try and fix any loop holes.

As Bishop says, 1925 is considerably after the war, after the long term effects of chemical weapons on people and the environment were being understood, and considering Germany had produced more tonnage of chemical weapons during the war than any other nation, due to their well developed chemical industry, it's not surprising that the victorious powers would seek to ban the use of such weapons again, in all their forms. (inc tear gas, to prevent escalation or "accidental" use of something worse)

I am still unsure what it is you're trying to prove or gain. You want to blame the French rather than the Germans for the horror of chemical warfare? Fine, but it makes zero difference who deployed these weapons first, as both sides used them in great measure, and whatever way you slice it, France developed Phosgene (which killed more than any other chemical weapon) and Germany developed Sulfur Mustard (which is the one that sticks in the popular consciousness as being easily the most horrific and with the longest lasting effects)

(and to throw in good measures here, Britain developed the Livens Projector to deliver entire canisters on target, and the US developed even more destructive forms of Sulfur Mustard, Lewistite)

So, what difference does it make whether you consider tear gas to be the start, or chlorine?

Originally posted by Cpl. Burden R 3294:

As Bishop says, 1925 is considerably after the war, after the long term effects of chemical weapons on people and the environment were being understood, and considering Germany had produced more tonnage of chemical weapons during the war than any other nation, due to their well developed chemical industry, it's not surprising that the victorious powers would seek to ban the use of such weapons again, in all their forms. (inc tear gas, to prevent escalation or "accidental" use of something worse)

I am still unsure what it is you're trying to prove or gain. You want to blame the French rather than the Germans for the horror of chemical warfare? Fine, but it makes zero difference who deployed these weapons first, as both sides used them in great measure, and whatever way you slice it, France developed Phosgene (which killed more than any other chemical weapon) and Germany developed Sulfur Mustard (which is the one that sticks in the popular consciousness as being easily the most horrific and with the longest lasting effects)

(and to throw in good measures here, Britain developed the Livens Projector to deliver entire canisters on target, and the US developed even more destructive forms of Sulfur Mustard, Lewistite)

So, what difference does it make whether you consider tear gas to be the start, or chlorine?

I'm correcting the wrong statement that the germans were the first to use poisonous gas on the front. No they didn't, it was the French who did.

History is about facts, all of what you said is irrelevant to the the fact that the original post is simply wrong.

I'm correcting the wrong statement that the germans were the first to use poisonous gas on the front. No they didn't, it was the French who did.

Unfortunately, no that's not the case. The French used tear gas. Tear gas is not considered a poisonous gas. Sorry. It might be a very unpleasant one, but, there we go. Treaties and Conventions are a ♥♥♥♥♥ aren't they? The first nation to use a weaponised, poisonous gas in the 1st World War, was Germany. As you say, history is about facts. That's a fact.

The original post isn't wrong. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Cpl. Burden R 3294:

I'm correcting the wrong statement that the germans were the first to use poisonous gas on the front. No they didn't, it was the French who did.

Unfortunately, no that's not the case. The French used tear gas. Tear gas is not considered a poisonous gas. Sorry. It might be a very unpleasant one, but, there we go. Treaties and Conventions are a ♥♥♥♥♥ aren't they? The first nation to use a weaponised, poisonous gas in the 1st World War, was Germany. As you say, history is about facts. That's a fact.

The original post isn't wrong. Sorry about that.

''isn't poisonous gas''

Tell that to people who died inhaling it. Even tear gas is poisonous if the victim is exposed to it for extended period of time.
I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ what anyone ''considers''. People died inhaling it.

''Long-lasting exposure or exposure to a large dose of riot control agent, especially in a closed setting, may cause severe effects such as the following:

Blindness
Glaucoma (a serious eye condition that can lead to blindness)
Immediate death due to severe chemical burns to the throat and lungs
Respiratory failure possibly resulting in death''

Taken from here. https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/riotcontrol/factsheet.asp

And that's for MODERN tear gas, specifically tailored and manufactured to cause as few fatalities as possible. I don't even want to think about the effects of 1900's ''tear gas'' applied in warfare.

Your appeal to emotion is misguided. Oxygen is poisonous in sufficient quantities over sufficient time. People have also died inhaling nitrogen, helium etc. by asphyxiation.

You're making an impassioned but illogical argument.

Also, what you think, what you're getting upset about, is utterly irrelevant. Established facts are established facts, and you won't change them throwing a tantrum on Steam :)

And, as I said before, still unsure what you're trying to prove. France, Germany and Britain all used chemical weapons to great effect during the 1st World War. "Well you did it first!" at this point is utterly, utterly irrelevant. What you personally think, what I personally think, about tear gas, is also irrelevant. As I said, treaties and conventions and people who were actually in positions to determine who did what came to a conclusion about this a century ago. You aren't going to prove anything here, you aren't going to revise history. Sorry.