Oops-Use of Smoke Violates Geneva Protocol

From
War diaries : T-6683 - Image 2089 - Héritage (canadiana.ca)

It would be interesting to read the subject doc, if a copy missed destruction.

 

Is that only firing white phosphorus smoke rounds AT enemy infantry to injure them, possibly?

 

I'm pretty sure the US used WP against both infantry and tanks. They produced series called Battle Experiences and Immediate Report that gave very brief details of weapons uses in the field and there are mentions of WP being used against personnel, tanks and buildings/positions.

Gary

 

If you look at the Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938, you will see that it excludes smoke in Article 7 (iii).

CHEMICAL, INCENDIARY OR BACTERIAL WEAPONS
Art. 6. The use of chemical, incendiary or bacterial weapons as against any State, whether or not a party to the present Convention, and in any war, whatever its character, is prohibited.

The application of this rule shall be regulated by the following three articles.

Art. 7. (a) The prohibition of the use of chemical weapons shall apply to the use, by any method whatsoever, for the purpose of injuring an adversary, of any natural or synthetic substance (whether solid, liquid or gaseous) which is harmful to the human or animal organism by reason of its being a toxic, asphyxiating, irritant or vesicant substance.
(b) The said prohibition shall not apply:

I. to explosives that are not in thelast-mentioned category;

II. to the noxious substances arising from the combustion or detonation of such explosives, provided that such explosives have not been designed or used with the object of producing such noxious substances;

III.to smoke or fog used to screen objectives or for other military purpose, provided that such smoke or fog is not liable to produce harmful effects under normal conditions of use;

IV. to gas that is merely lachrymatory.

 

It was the use of the chemical agent (white phosphorus) rather than the smoke that was the issue. The Chiefs of Staff considered the matter and, although the countermanding order goes further, the CIGS’s original fudge seems to have been the policy adopted after consultation with SHAEF.