need help with a story i heard in the pub

[Philip_Hawes]

i know that this isn't about any aircrews, but i was talking to this guy in a pub last night at university, who told me about his great-grandfather. the story goes that his great-grandfather was in the front line around ypres when the germans first attacked the British with gas. he said that out of something like 1000 men, only three survived, one being his Great grandfather. i assume that the year was 1915, but i can't remember this guys surname. it started with a 'C' i believe. so i guess i asking if anyone recalls such an event, and can point me in the right direction. i would go to the records office in London, but cannot get away from university because of exams. i just thought it was a very personal story from a horrible period of history.

thanks for any advice.
Phil, University of Kent, England

[Graeme]

Phil

The use of gas was mentioned in Field-Marshal French's Despatch of 15 June 1915 to the Secretary of State for War. In it he wrote:

"I much regret that during the period under report the fighting has been characterized on the enemy's side by a cynical and barbarous disregard of the well-known usages of civilised war and a flagrant defiance of the Hague Convention.

All the scientific resources of Germany have apparently been brought into play to produce a gas of so virulent and poisonous a nature that any human being brought into contact with it is first paralysed and then meets with a lingering and agonising death. The enemy has invariably preceded, prepared and supported his attacks by a discharge in stupendous volume of these poisonous gas fumes whenever the wind was favourable. Such weather conditions have only prevailed to any extent in the neighbourhood of Ypres, and there can be no doubt that the effect of these poisonous fumes materially influenced the operations in that theatre, until experience suggested effective counter-measures, which have since been so perfected as to render them innocuous.

The brain power and thought which has evidently been at work before this unworthy method of making war reached the pitch of efficiency which has been demonstrated in its practice shows that the Germans must have harboured these designs for a long time.

As a soldier I cannot help expressing the deepest regret and some surprise that an Army which hitherto has claimed to be the chief exponent of the chivalry of war should have stooped to employ such devices against brave and gallant foes."

He later describes the use of gas as follows:

"On May 1st another attempt to recapture Hill 60 was supported by great volumes of asphyxiating gas, which caused nearly all the men along a front of about 400 yards to be immediately struck down by its fumes.

The splendid courage with which the leaders rallied their men and subdued the natural tendency to panic (which is inevitable on such occasions) combined with the prompt intervention of supports, once more drove the enemy back.

A second and more severe "gas" attack, under much more favourable weather conditions, enabled the enemy to recapture this position on May 5th.

The enemy owes his success in this last attack entirely to the use of asphyxiating gas. It was only a few days later that the means, which have since proved so effective, of counteracting this method, of making war were put into practice. Had it been otherwise, the enemy's attack on May 5th would most certainly have shared the fate of all the many previous attempts he had made.

4. It was at the commencement of the Second Battle of Ypres on the evening of the 22nd April, referred to in paragraph 1 of this report, that the enemy first made use of asphyxiating gas.

Some days previously I had complied with General Joffre's request to take over the trenches occupied by the French, and on the evening of the 22nd the troops holding the lines east of Ypres were posted as follows:—

From Steenstraate to the east of Langemarck, as far as the Poelcappelle Road, a French Division.

Thence, in a south-easterly direction toward the Passchendaele-Becelaere Road, the Canadian Division.

Thence a Division took up the line in a southerly direction east of Zonnebeke to a point west of Becelaere, whence another Division continued the line south-east to the northern limit of the Corps on its right.

Of the 5th Corps there were four battalions in Divisional Reserve about Ypres; the Canadian Division had one battalion in Divisional Reserve and the 1st Canadian Brigade in Army Reserve. An Infantry Brigade, which had just been withdrawn after suffering heavy losses on Hill 60, was resting about Vlamertinghe.

Following a heavy bombardment, the enemy attacked the French Division at about 5 p.m., using asphyxiating gases for the first time. Aircraft reported that at about 5 p.m. thick yellow smoke had been seen issuing from the German trenches between Langemarck and Bixschoote. The French reported that two simultaneous attacks had been made east of the Ypres-Staden Railway, in which these asphyxiating gases had been employed.

What follows almost defies description. The effect of these poisonous gases was so virulent as to render the whole of the line held by the French Division mentioned above practically incapable of any action at all. It was at first impossible for anyone to realise what had actually happened. The smoke and fumes hid everything from sight, and hundreds of men were thrown into a comatose or dying condition, and within an hour the whole position had to be abandoned, together with about 50 guns."

In the same Despatch, the Field-Marshal quoted Sir Herbert Plumer:

"There have been many cases of individual gallantry. As instances may be given the following:—

"During one of the heavy attacks made against our infantry gas was seen rolling forward from the enemy's trenches. Private Lynn of the 2nd Lancashire Fusiliers at once rushed to the machine gun without waiting to adjust his respirator. Single-handed he kept his gun in action the whole time the gas was rolling over, actually hoisting it on the parapet to get a better field of fire. Although nearly suffocated by the gas, he poured a stream of lead into the advancing enemy and checked their attack. He was carried to his dug-out, but, hearing another attack was imminent, he tried to get back to his gun. Twenty-four hours later he died in great agony from the effects of the gas."

Just to show it wasn't one-sided - in his Despatch dated 15 October 1915, Field-Marshal French reported:

"Owing to the repeated use by the enemy of asphyxiating gases in their attacks on our positions, I have been compelled to resort to similar methods; and a detachment was organised for this purpose, which took part in the operations commencing on the 25th September for the first time.

Although the enemy was known to have been prepared for such reprisals, our gas attack met with marked success, and produced a demoralising effect in some of the opposing units, of which ample evidence was forthcoming in the captured trenches.

The men who undertook this work carried out their unfamiliar duties during a heavy bombardment with conspicuous gallantry and coolness; and I feel confident in their ability to more than hold their own should the enemy again resort to this method of warfare."

Any help?

Graeme

[Philip_Hawes]

hey Graeme

thanks alot for all the information. i've read a few accounts about gas attacks on French positions from the eyes of Canadian soldiers. however, i pretty sure that the soldier i looking for was British and not a canadian. i'll try to research it some more, and talk to this bloke from the pub to get some better details. i may ask for more advice in the future, so please keep an eye out for frther posts!!!

thanks again.
phil

[Shredward]

There is an article on the attack at
http://www.worldwar1.com/sf2ypres.htm
cheers,
shredward

[Michael Skeet]

Lyn MacDonald's massive book "1915" has a fair amount on the Second Battle of Ypres. The French and Canadians were the first hit, but the Germans used gas on several occasions in April and May 1915, and I know that British units were affected (at St. Julian, for example).

The idea of there only being three survivors from a battalion is a bit hard to credit. I have a bit of trouble even accepting a figure of 997 casualties, including wounded. My understanding is that the worst single-day loss in any British battalion during that war (or any other, come to that) was the 710 lost by a West Yorkshire battalion on 1 July 1916.

Allowable hyperbole, perhaps; the first victims of gas were definitely horrified by the experience.

[Shredward]

I've never seen statistics, but I suspect the casualty rate in the Algerian battalions was so close to 100% as to make no never mind. There is a chilling account of that attack told from the German perspective in the series "For King and Empire" : the fury of the response of rifle and gunfire from the French trenches as the cloud rolled toward them; the bawling of cattle and neighing of horses, and it's gradual dwindling away till an eerie absolute silence enveloped the battlefield.
As an aside, The Royal Newfoundland Regiment sent 805 over the top on 1 July 1916. 68 answered roll call next morning. A very grim day.
shredward

[Philip_Hawes]

i totally agree with you there michael, i think perhaps the story has been tinged with family hearsay or something. perhaps the number was smaller or the context misunderstood. i believe that this soldier experienced something similar to Wilfred Owen's 'seventh hell', and this has been turned into this miracle. but then again, war is a strange phenomena.
thanks for the suggestion of the book.

phil

[Michael]

Bear in mind that a large proportion of the CEF were British-born, and it is probable that more than a few returned to the U.K. at some point.

If you had a name, it would be possible to run it against the National Archives database for the CEF.

[Michael Skeet]

Originally posted by Shredward@May 2 2004, 04:26 PM
[b] As an aside, The Royal Newfoundland Regiment sent 805 over the top on 1 July 1916. 68 answered roll call next morning.
The actual casualty figures for the First Newfoundland Regiment (they didn't become the Royal Newfoundland Regiment until 1917) vary according to which sources you look at.

According to the battalion War Diary (as quoted by Middlebrook), the regiment sent 752 men into battle on 1 July (following instructions, some 10 percent of strength were LOOB). Of these, 26 officers and 658 other ranks were killed, wounded, or missing (on that day, invariably a euphemism for "killed") for a total casualty count of 684. For the mathematically inclined, that's 91 percent casualties. Every officer who went into battle was either killed or wounded.

Middlebrook shows 32 individual battalions in the attacking force as having suffered 500 or more casualties on that one day.

[Michael Skeet]

Just to make things more confusing: yesterday I saw a book, published more recently than Middlebrook's, which advanced a figure of 801 Newfoundlanders committed to the assault on 1 July, and 710 casualties. This book also claimed as its source the battalion War Diary.

Obviously both books can't be right. Anyone out there have easy access to the file at the PRO?

[Jim]

Sometimes the term "casualties" confuses people. Casualites includes both dead and wounded. It is a common misunderstanding that people think is means just the dead.

[Shredward]

Michael,
re Newfoundlanders at the Somme
To confuse things further, the National Archives quotes 684 casualties on that day in July. They will have the battalion war diaries online soon.
http://www.collectionscanada.ca/05/0518/05...18062002_e.html (http://www.collectionscanada.ca/05/0518/051806/0518062002_e.html)
True, the Regiment was granted the honour "Royal" by HM George V in 1917, in recognition of their service at the Somme; the only regiment so honoured in wartime. Newfoundland still observes July 1 as a day of mourning, both for Beaumont Hamel, and for the day in 1949 when it annexed Canada ;>)
cheers,
shredward

[Charlie]

Gas is an effective weapon in certain situations but I doubt that it is an effective killer. Every gas attack has to contend with the vagaries of wind and weather. A sudden change in the wind can make it all but useless. Nonetheless, gas is very debilitating even when the dose is not lethal. As long as an enemy is powerless to oppose you it doesn't matter whether you kill him or not.
In the Great War the big killers were Spanish Flu, artillary and machine gun fire. Not necessarily in that order.
In the Battle of the Somme about 20,000 men died in one day. That's big time carnage. All done the old fashioned way. Bullets, bombs and shells.
To me it's amazing that the combatants in many of these battles didn't climb from the trenches and shoot themselves in the temple. Tney knew there chance of survival was thin indeed.
Had an uncle who was gased in 1918. The family claimed that was the reason for his irrassible personality. Turn out that he was that way long before he was conscripted.
Charlie

[Michael Skeet]

Originally posted by Jim+May 6 2004, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jim &#064; May 6 2004, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Sometimes the term "casualties" confuses people. Casualites includes both dead and wounded. It is a common misunderstanding that people think is means just the dead.
That's not the issue here. The figure for casualties on 1 July includes killed, wounded, died of wounds, and missing. The question relates purely to the numbers of men committed to the battle, and the number who did not answer the roll on the following day as being able to serve.

I've tried to figure out how the discrepancies could have happened, and I'm still at a loss. A figure of 801 is too low to be the total number of men available (including, in other words, those LOOB). Middlebrook suggests in his book that some miscounting occurred in books written after the war because officer casualties were inadvertently counted twice, but that isn't the issue here either (total officers committed to battle: 26; total officer casualties: 26).

<!--QuoteBegin-Charlie@May 7 2004, 05:20 AM
[b] To me it's amazing that the combatants in many of these battles didn't climb from the trenches and shoot themselves in the temple. Tney knew there chance of survival was thin indeed.[/quote]
If they climbed from the trenches in daylight, they wouldn't have to worry about shooting themselves anywhere; the chaps on the other side of No Man's Land would take care of that right-quick.

Niall Ferguson's interesting (if somewhat contentious) The Pity of War argues that many men in the trenches stuck it out because they actually liked what they were doing, and were able to ignore the odds of their being wounded or killed (Ferguson suggests that for a British soldier there was about a 50:50 chance he'd be hit by a projectile during the course of his service). I'm not completely sure I agree with that, but I do think that the men in the trenches weren't as frightened or fed-up as some post-war writing makes them seem.