abonnement Unibet Coolblue Bitvavo
pi_111321436
Jullie mogen best mijn username gebruiken hoor ;)
Ik hou wel van een goede (militaire) discussie aangezien ik dit onderwerp zeer interessant vind.
het is dan ook niet mijn bedoeling om foute gedachtes te geven aan iemand.
Ik ben alleen voor de waarheid in deze dingen. En dat mis ik vaker in westerse media / school. En dat vind ik jammer.
pi_111368846
quote:
0s.gif Op zaterdag 5 mei 2012 19:44 schreef Cobra4 het volgende:

[..]

De eerste inzet van (traan)gas door de Fransen had weinig tot geen effect.

Alle partijen waren aan het experimenteren met gassen. Maar meestal zonder merkbaar succes. Met dank aan Fritz Haber waren het de Duitsers die als eerste op grote schaal een schadelijk gas hebben kunnen inzetten.
Nederland ook trouwens. Laatst nog interessant boek over gelezen:
De geest in de fles
http://www.pm.nl/artikel/692/geheime-dossiers-gifgas-vrijgegeven
  donderdag 10 mei 2012 @ 11:05:38 #53
304498 Nibb-it
Dirc die maelre
pi_111369803
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 10 mei 2012 10:33 schreef Den_Haag het volgende:

[..]

Nederland ook trouwens. Laatst nog interessant boek over gelezen:
De geest in de fles
http://www.pm.nl/artikel/692/geheime-dossiers-gifgas-vrijgegeven
Correct, die mosterdgasfabriek op de Hembrug is in 1938 naar de Oost verplaatst. Hier een mooi artikel waar het ook aan bod komt, wel de moeite waard: http://www.wereldoorlog14(...)des-doods/index.html
  Admin woensdag 27 juni 2012 @ 12:51:57 #54
2589 crew  yvonne
On(t)deugend
pi_113455242
The Rationale for, and the Deployment of, Poisonous Gas on the Western Front in the Great War
quote:
In early 1915, accounts were freely circulated in turn by the French, British and Germans that poisonous gas was being used as a weapon of war by their opponents on the Western Front. This was in clear contravention of the 1899 Hague Convention on this subject. The Germans were particularly emphatic about the use of war gases. They categorically stated that even at the outbreak of war the French had 30,000 shells in their arsenal carrying a poisonous gas derived from bromine, and that in April 1915 the French Army had specifically launched projectiles containing poisonous gas on the German sectors in Champagne, Verdun, the Meuse/Moselle rivers and Ypres between 13 and 15 April 1915. The Germans also accused the British of using similar gas projectiles at Ypres on 15 April.

Facts that emerged, after the war, confirmed that the French had indeed used hand-grenades (originally produced for the French gendarmerie) containing a tear gas - ethylbromacetate - on their sector of the Western Front. However, it was also claimed that, from October 1914, the Germans themselves had definitely employed a skin and mucous membrane irritant - dianisidine chlorosulphonate - which was included in shrapnel shells fired in the British Neuve Chapelle Sector.

Confirmation was also obtained that in January 1915, Dr Karl von Tappen of the German War Ministry had formally suggested that the German Army could obtain a significant war-winning shock effect by using a tear gas called xylyl bromide in artillery shells, and this chemical agent - T Stoff (Tappen‘s agent) - was duly formally approved by the German Army as a potential weapon of war for use against the French and British Armies on the Western Front.

Regardless of these accusations, allegations and insinuations, there is no doubt that the first operationally significant use of a chemical agent on the Western Front in the form of a poisonous gas was carried out on the 22 April 1915 by the German Army. It was deployed at Langemarck in the Ypres Salient against formations of the British, French and Canadian troops concentrated in trench works. Paradoxically, because the German war-economy in 1915 was suffering from a chronic shortage of shell-making steel, the means of the dispersal of the gas was via gas piping connecting 190-pound pressurised steel gas cylinders. In all 6,000 cylinders were used releasing 160 tons of the gas. In a light breeze this produced an optimal concentration of 1 part of the gas per 1,000 parts of ambient air to provide a slowing moving wall of ground-hugging gas 6km wide and 1km deep. The stability of the column of poisonous gas was, of course, always susceptible to other possible variations in the ambient meteorological conditions.
Verder lezen:
http://www.westernfrontas(...)n-the-great-war.html
Yvonne riep ergens: Static is gewoon Static, je leeft met hem of niet.
Geen verborgen agenda's, trouw, grote muil, lief hartje, bang voor bloed, scheld FA's graag uit voor lul.


Op dinsdag 26 oktober 2021 16:46 schreef Elan het volgende:
Hier sta ik dan weer niet van te kijken Zelfs het virus is bang voor jou.
  donderdag 28 juni 2012 @ 01:30:39 #55
111528 Viajero
Who dares wins
pi_113496261
quote:
0s.gif Op woensdag 27 juni 2012 12:51 schreef yvonne het volgende:
The Rationale for, and the Deployment of, Poisonous Gas on the Western Front in the Great War

[..]

Verder lezen:
http://www.westernfrontas(...)n-the-great-war.html
Waarom was iets dat pas in 1915 voor het eerst gebruikt werd al in 1899 verboden?
It really is just like a medieval doctor bleeding his patient, observing that the patient is getting sicker, not better, and deciding that this calls for even more bleeding.
  donderdag 28 juni 2012 @ 01:34:06 #56
111528 Viajero
Who dares wins
pi_113496308
Ook interesant trouwens:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

Winston Churchill, 1920
It really is just like a medieval doctor bleeding his patient, observing that the patient is getting sicker, not better, and deciding that this calls for even more bleeding.
  Admin donderdag 28 juni 2012 @ 01:37:11 #57
2589 crew  yvonne
On(t)deugend
pi_113496354
quote:
0s.gif Op donderdag 28 juni 2012 01:30 schreef Viajero het volgende:

[..]

Waarom was iets dat pas in 1915 voor het eerst gebruikt werd al in 1899 verboden?
Chemische wapens waren niet echt nieuw hè. Ik meen dat in het Verdrag gesproken wordt van ' dodelijke gassen'
Yvonne riep ergens: Static is gewoon Static, je leeft met hem of niet.
Geen verborgen agenda's, trouw, grote muil, lief hartje, bang voor bloed, scheld FA's graag uit voor lul.


Op dinsdag 26 oktober 2021 16:46 schreef Elan het volgende:
Hier sta ik dan weer niet van te kijken Zelfs het virus is bang voor jou.
  donderdag 28 juni 2012 @ 08:42:45 #58
304498 Nibb-it
Dirc die maelre
pi_113497999
In a series of meetings, between 18 May and 29 July 1899, in which the constant desire of the delegates above-mentioned has been to realize, in the fullest manner possible, the generous views of the august initiator of the Conference and the intentions of their Governments, the Conference has agreed, for submission for signature by the plenipotentiaries, on the text of the Convention and Declarations enumerated below and annexed to the present
Act:
I. Convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences.
II. Convention regarding the laws and customs of war on land.
III.Convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864.
IV. Three Declarations:
1. To prohibit the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other similar new methods.
2. To prohibit the use of projectiles, the only object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases.
3. To prohibit the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/145?OpenDocument
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Hague_Convention (volledige tekst)

"In de slotakte van 29 juli 1899 werden drie verdragen en drie verklaringen opgenomen met een vijf jaar geldend verbod op het uitwerpen van explosieven uit ballons, een verbod op projectielen die verstikkende gassen verspreidden en een verbod op het gebruik van dumdumkogels. Over andere onderwerpen wilde men op een volgende conferentie verder praten." - http://anemaa.home.xs4all(...)conferentie_1899.htm
abonnement Unibet Coolblue Bitvavo
Forum Opties
Forumhop:
Hop naar:
(afkorting, bv 'KLB')