"M Device" ?

[apple]

Came across a review of a new book. While the book seems quite sensationalist, and it perhaps (I haven't read it) is not an academic historical work, one of the claims in the review caught my eye. The author was discussing the use of gas against the Bolsheviks in northern Russia.

The book claims a "mysterious" new weapon the M Device was dropped, from aeroplanes, on the Bolsheviks.

Is anyone familiar with the M Device? Contained in the comment sections, of the link I've pasted below, is a comment that the "M Device" contained Adamsite, which seems reasonable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/10346568/Winston-Churchill-authorised-use-of-chemical-weapons.html

[centurion]

Sounds like a sensationalist way of promoting book sales

[centurion]

At first sight there appear to be lots of accounts of the British use of gas but on examination they are all the same somewhat senstional account recycled over and over and there is no credible source quoted. Churchill did ask why the use of gas was prohibited see minute http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/gallery/Russia/CHAR_16_15A_46.php which is rather different from actually using it and is quoted as advocating its use. However Antoine Capet, FRHistS, Professor of British Studies at the University of Rouen has carried out research into the subject and can find no evidence of anything other than tear gas (non lethal) being used. At the time the aircraft available to the RAF could not carry a sufficiently large bomb load to make the use of a lethal vapour (such as mustard gas) or an asphyxiating gas (such as Chlorine) in concentrations that would be effective at all possible. Delivery would have had to have been by gas shell or Livens projector. There is evidence of the Red Army using gas shells in Poland. However Churchill's pronouncement was seized upon by Soviet propagandists in the 1930s as evidence of the British use of gas.

[apple]

However Antoine Capet, FRHistS, Professor of British Studies at the University of Rouen has carried out research into the subject and can find no evidence of anything other than tear gas (non lethal) being used.

Could Monsieur Capet still be referring to Adamsite when he mentions "tear gas" ? From what I understand, until some American police killed several rioters with it, Adamsite wasn't considered lethal. Rather, it was intended to be a, more effective, substitute for tear/ CS gas.

[centurion]

Could Monsieur Capet still be referring to Adamsite when he mentions "tear gas" ? From what I understand, until some American police killed several rioters with it, Adamsite wasn't considered lethal. Rather, it was intended to be a, more effective, substitute for tear/ CS gas.

I would very much doubt it Can you quote chapter and verse for the US incident? Frankly it sound incredible way beyond the point of unbelievability.

[Stoppage Drill]

There have been serious claims made that gas was used at about the same time by the RAF in their Air Policing role in Iraq, and that Churchill was again in favour of using it against "uncivilised" tribes.

[apple]

I would very much doubt it Can you quote chapter and verse for the US incident? Frankly it sound incredible way beyond the point of unbelievability.

Chapter and verse, well no. I don't agree with the use of Adamsite on civilians as being incredible/ unbelievable. But, I'm quite familiar with the nature of your posts here.

Now would I be surprised if Adamsite was described as tear gas. From my "non chapter and verse" understanding; tear gas, CS gas, blue cross and Adamsite were all simliar in their use and effects.

Adamsite, in 1919, was new and I could understand how the author could describe it as a secret weapon and it would seem to be a sensible choice for use against targets lacking in proper protection. Know nothing of Bolshevik gas drills, but can imagine they mightn't have been particularly good. A quick acting, relatively debilitating gas i.e. Adamsite, would seem the perfect choice.

[centurion]

Mustard gas of which Adamsite is a variety burns and corrodes causing blistering and severe tissue damage. Again I am serious can you give any verifiable example of it being mistaken for tear gas?

[Doc2]

Mustard gas of which Adamsite is a variety burns and corrodes causing blistering and severe tissue damage. Again I am serious can you give any verifiable example of it being mistaken for tear gas?

I'm not sure that Adamsite is in reality any version of Mustard Gas, unless there are two distinct gasses called "Adamsite". In the US at least, it has always been considered a tear gas-like agent, with "mask-breaker" capabilities. It does irritate skin and mucous membranes, but I can find no reference to it causing severe tissue damage.

It is an arsenical diphenylaminechlorarsine, and acts like tear gas, with the additional effects of causing severe nausea. In the past, it was referred to by the military as "DM" or "vomit Gas". It was reportedly used against the Bonus Army of the interwar period, and did reportedly result in a few juvenile deaths during that episode (though that report may have been propaganda).

See the Centers for disease control website for details. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/adamsite/

[apple]

Mustard gas of which Adamsite is a variety burns and corrodes causing blistering and severe tissue damage. Again I am serious can you give any verifiable example of it being mistaken for tear gas?

What you describe sound very much like Lewisite, which I think you're getting mixed up.with Adamsite. Adamsite isn't covered by the Geneva convention, it's a riot gas.

[Stoppage Drill]

I would very much doubt it Can you quote chapter and verse for the US incident? Frankly it sound incredible way beyond the point of unbelievability.

Don't know if it's the same incident, but the US Army under the direct local control of Douglas Macarthur used Adamsite as a supposedly sub-lethal riot gas against protestors in Washington DC in 1932. As it was used in a tented/shanty camp some pockets of high concentration developed, and deaths ensued.

[Simon Jones]

I described the British use of the M Device from the air in detail in Imperial War Museum Review in an article in 1999 ‘ “The Right Medicine for the Bolshevist”: British air-dropped chemical weapons in North Russia, 1919.’ Perhaps this is what Giles Milton has recently discovered. The M Device was a chemical weapon which produced smoke containing diphenylaminechloroarsine (DM) or diphenylchlorarsine (DA). Although not necessarily lethal, these were capable of penetrating most respirators and caused intense pain to the sinuses as well as symptoms of psychological misery. The M Device was simply thrown by hand and was reliant on the wind to send the smoke towards the enemy. The conditions were not suitable on North Russia and so the Royal Engineers improvised aerial bombs and the RAF dropped them on a number of occasions in 1919 before the British withdrew. It seems to have been fairly effective locally but was not used again to my knowledge. If anyone wants a copy of the article they should PM me their email address.

[Stoppage Drill]

Chapitre et le verset, I fancy.

[Tom W.]

I'm not sure that Adamsite is in reality any version of Mustard Gas, unless there are two distinct gasses called "Adamsite".

No, Adamsite is a vomiting or sneezing agent. It has nothing whatsoever to do with mustard gas. It's named after American chemist Roger Adams, who developed it as a riot gas in 1918. It's also called DM, for diphenylaminechlorarsine.

It was indeed used on the Bonus Army in 1932, killing several children of protestors.

[Simon Jones]

Thanks Tom - NB DM is not the same as Adamsite.

[Tom W.]

Thanks Tom - NB DM is not the same as Adamsite.

Well, the Center for Disease Control says it is.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/EmergencyResponseCard_29750017.html

Maybe everyone at the CDC was furloughed and now it's being run by the same geniuses who are barricading open-air war memorials.

Here's the World War I Memorial with its one barricade out in front of the completely open field.

Photos can be vomiting agents too.

[Simon Jones]

Thanks Tom,

I must stand corrected!

A M Prentiss Chemicals in War (New York 1937) states that the USA and Great Britain simultaneously discovered diphenylaminechlorarsine as an improvement on DA. I had always thought of DM and Adamsite as different agents.

[Tom W.]

Thanks Tom,

I must stand corrected!

A M Prentiss Chemicals in War (New York 1937) states that the USA and Great Britain simultaneously discovered diphenylaminechlorarsine as an improvement on DA. I had always thought of DM and Adamsite as different agents.

Learning new things is always good, and I must congratulate you on your positve attitude. It cheers me up.

Too often the response is, "That cannot be true, because I have spoken! The end."

I've learned tons more since I wrote my first book about flamethrowers. I wish I could go back and make corrections. But I wrote the book in good faith, with the information available to me at the time, so I can't be too hard on myself.

[Simon Jones]

You are welcome Tom. The inability of a few GWF users to admit error is one of the reasons why I use it less these days.

I realise that I was confusing Adamsite with Lewisite, which is something altogether nastier.

[Tom W.]

You are welcome Tom. The inability of a few GWF users to admit error is one of the reasons why I use it less these days.

Boy, do I hear that. I feel exactly the same way myself. It's the reason I don't post as often as I used to. I think, "Eh, its just going to turn into another argument. Who needs it?" And I don't add to the thread.

[eairicbloodaxe]

I think, "Eh, its just going to turn into another argument. Who needs it?" And I don't add to the thread.

No it won't! ;-)

[Tom W.]

No it won't! ;-)

"That is not an argument! It's just contradiction!"

The good thing about Simon is he doesn't believe knowledge is proprietary. I don't either.

I stopped commenting altogether on two other military forums (fora?) because they'd turned their sneer-phasers up to "kill." For me, all the fun was gone. A couple of commenters here have done their level best to dissuade everyone else from commenting.

Might I suggest they start blogs where they can monologue in glorious, uninterrupted, unchallenged bliss, secure in the knowledge that nobody will dare venture a dissenting opinion?

[Stoppage Drill]

Might I suggest they . . . . . monologue in glorious, uninterrupted, unchallenged bliss, secure in the knowledge that nobody will dare venture a dissenting opinion?

Les Dawson and his mother-in-law would have loved that line.

[MBrockway]

You are welcome Tom. The inability of a few GWF users to admit error is one of the reasons why I use it less these days.

I realise that I was confusing Adamsite with Lewisite, which is something altogether nastier.

Boy, do I hear that. I feel exactly the same way myself. It's the reason I don't post as often as I used to. I think, "Eh, its just going to turn into another argument. Who needs it?" And I don't add to the thread.

My feelings also

[Tom W.]

My feelings also

It's a shame. A couple years ago I made some totally innocuous comment that someone quite stupidly took as an insult to the entire British armed forces. After that, he inserted himself into every thread to remind me of the HORRIBLE, DISHONORABLE thing I'd said. I apologized just to shut him up, but he kept after me for so long that I stopped posting for a full year. I haven't seen him around lately. Maybe he finally got committed.