Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
How many people were killed or hurt directly by smoke?



That's actually a valid point, but civilians can be very divided, as in one half can be in favor of a war and the other half not. By targeting them all indiscriminately you're essentially punishing the ones who oppose the war effort just as much as the ones who don't. And in dictatorships, you may even have 80% opposition etc., etc. I would assume that and the fact that a cleaning lady does not consider/realize herself as contributing to the war effort even though she pays income taxes, is where the protections come from.
From wiki on chemical weapons:

The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[59] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[59] Victor Israelyan, a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[60] After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimuskai quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."[61] Thousands of those killed around Adzhimushk were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation from gas.[60]
From same link, the Italians applaid mustard and tear gas liberally in Ethiopia before the war. Similarly with the Japanese in Asia, though over a longer time period through the war.

Can't find anything about specific application or morbidities from tear gas/smoke on Western Front. For smoke, I assume, most of the (unintentional) effect must have to induce chronic conditions in one's own troops.


Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
How many people were killed or hurt directly by smoke?



That's actually a valid point, but civilians can be very divided, as in one half can be in favor of a war and the other half not. By targeting them all indiscriminately you're essentially punishing the ones who oppose the war effort just as much as the ones who don't. And in dictatorships, you may even have 80% opposition etc., etc. I would assume that and the fact that a cleaning lady does not consider/realize herself as contributing to the war effort even though she pays income taxes, is where the protections come from.
If you're directly targeting civilians to destroy morale or the war economy, as in WW2 or Vietnam, the political opinions of individual civilians aren't relevant to you.