At the same time that new weapons are developing, war is becoming industrial and international conventions are replacing morality, the 20th century ^brings great novelty in uniforms and the way of waging war; the perfectly visible soldier is no longer a necessity, on the contrary.

According to the usual historiography, it was the invention of smokeless powder in 1885 by the French engineer Vieille - with the progress of chemistry - that would disrupt the importance of colours in uniforms. As its name suggests, this powder produces little smoke and the battlefield becomes transparent; it is no longer necessary to wear bright colours to be seen. Is this classic explanation acceptable or sufficient?

Neutral shade outfits

At the beginning of the 20th ^century, forms of warfare evolved. In South Africa, guerrilla warfare took on considerable importance; the supple, manoeuvrable Boers, very good marksmen and blending in with the landscape, overtook the British army, which manoeuvred in heavy and clearly visible squares. At the battle of Spion Kopp in 1900, the British infantry was defeated. The Russo-Japanese war also raises new questions for observers. Many studies are conducted on new weapons, new powders, tactics used on both sides. Among Western observers, some will become famous or important, such as Captain Pershnig, who was to command the American contingent in France during the First World War, or Caviglia, future Minister of War in Italy, or John Hamilton, future British Army General [1].

1] Many countries are quickly drawing the consequences of the devastation that can be caused by the new rapid-fire weapons and the tactics that adapt to them. They experimented and then adopted uniforms of so-called "neutral" shades, intended to blend into the landscape and to camouflage-the term is certainly inappropriate for this period-the fighter. Great Britain adopts the khaki in 1900, the United States of America in 1902, Russia in 1909, Germany the feldgrau in 1907, Austria-Hungary the grey-hawk in 1909 and Italy the grey-green the same year.

In France, the first experiments in uniform visibility were carried out as early as 1889 on the Vincennes firing range. Around 1900, the debates were very heated, passionate and complex. During the period 1902-1906, two trials were carried out with the so-called "boër" outfit - the name is revealing - and the "beige-blue" outfit.The first was presented to the review of 14 July 1903 by a company of the 28th infantry regiment. The second was worn by two companies of the 43rd and 72nd ^{infantry regiments}. In 1911, the "Réséda" outfit was tested. Tests were carried out by the 106th line infantry ^regiment, the 25th ^artillery regiment ^and the 2nd mounted chasseurs. All these trials were inspired by the reforms of other countries, except for the one by the painter Detaille who, in 1912, proposed new uniforms in shimmering colours. Of course, the painter was not able to escape the aesthetic, but it is especially revealing to see that we have turned to an artist well known for these battle scenes to define a new uniform. ^[2] which seems especially fitting for the July 14th review at Longchamp... ^[3] and quite unsuitable for field service.

It took France many years to agree to change uniforms. The French uniform, clearly visible with its madder trousers and not always well adapted to life in the field, is not really a speciality of the military. The question is undoubtedly broader. Thus it was not until Pasteur that the doctor left the pointed hat of Molière's time, or more precisely the top hat, to operate with a white blouse, more adapted to the rules of hygiene. The robe of the judge or that of the lawyer is also, still today, a means of designating force, power and law. But the auctioneer has generally abandoned his robe. One could say that he is in the front line; with the laws and the market and money he is in the century, and he loses, in this secularization, his uniform, just like the priest.

It is precisely this secularization of the uniform that ^{part of} French society rejected at the end of the 19th century. Some even mocked the uniforms that followed the fashion of civilian clothing. The soldier and his clothing must remain out of time; this is undoubtedly an idea whose strength is equalled only by its irrationality. None of these proposals for reform are being implemented. The causes are multiple but can be grouped under three themes.

The colour of the uniform reflects French mentalities

First of all, there are political reasons. The inability to make a choice is partly due to ministerial instability because the change of uniform must be voted on by law and therefore debated in the House. An attempt is made but the Minister of War changes and his successor is prepared to launch something else or ... to do nothing. While Ministers André, Berteaux, Goiran and Messiny were more in favour of a change, Etienne and Millerand put an end to the experiments. Finally, beyond the trials, the change of uniform had to be voted on in the House under section 10 of the 1873 Act on the organization of the army and this required a majority.

Financial considerations are also important because changing the colour of hundreds of thousands of uniforms has a cost. There are about 500,000 infantrymen and women in peacetime... The 1889 Act set active service at three years for the entire contingent and reduced the number of exemptions. The French army could be increased to 3 million men on mobilization. The change of uniform did not therefore have a neutral impact on the State budget. From another economic point of view, it is not possible to claim, as has sometimes been wrongly claimed, that it was the electoral weight of madder producers that motivated these choices: madder culture disappeared at the beginning of the 1880s. The dyes were then chemical and, ironically enough, the alizarin came from Germany, whose synthetic productions were far ahead of the French ones. It is the German alizarin^[4]whose price went from 34 francs per ton in 1872 to 6 francs per ton around 1880, which made the producers of Provencal madder disappear.

But beyond these reasons, which are of a technical nature, there are deep-rooted causes which have more to do with psychology than with reality, and which are more of a psychological nature than with reality.They are part of the mental representations that a society makes of itself and that we could try to define in two ways: the memory of the 1870 defeat against Prussia and the idea that many French people have of the Army. Indeed, the positions taken on this subject are very diverse but seem to have a common denominator. Thus, General and Senator de Chabaud-Latour said, as early as 1878, about the dress of the French infantryman: it's a legendary uniform and the MP Lambert de Sainte-Croix: "[abandonner le pantalon garance] ce serait renoncer à toutes nos traditions militaires^[5]. Many people think and say loud and clear that it would be cowardly to hide in order to make war, that this tradition would not belong to the French army. The uniform [the madder trousers] is consecrated by glory and I would say sacred by defeat.^[6]. This is the pants of defeat in 1870; revenge should be obtained by soldiers wearing the same uniform. It's a way to wash away contempt and dishonour. Mr. Etienne, former Minister of War, even goes so far as to say: Red trousers are France! During the review on 14 July 1912, during which the new Réséda outfit was presented, the crowd whistled at the units trying out this outfit and the press was no more tender. This feeling is very persistent and the 1870 uniform can even become an emblem, a signal. Thus, in 1914, the painter Chaperon produced a large canvas entitled TheBorder Post inwhich he very clearlyshows the men in 1870 uniforms who are seeking revenge on the Reseda.An Alsatian woman, recognizable by her outfit, is under the surveillance of an Uhlan who, from the top of his horse, looks over the border marked by the famous border post. ^[7].

The new uniforms were also criticized for lacking panache and damaging the army's prestige. Some even feared that this loss of uniform prestige would adversely affect the number and quality of engagements and re-engagements. In 1911, MP Clémentel explained his refusal to change the colour of the uniforms as follows: "It would risk reducing [the number of engagements] or even drying up the source ofthem.^[8]. At that time, it was inconceivable to design two uniforms, one for going out and one for the field - for combat - and we had to wait another thirty years for a suitable uniform concept to be developed in France [9].

9] Beyond these economic and psychological approaches, it is necessary to place, in France, these questions of uniforms in the broader framework of military thought. Another quarrel agitates the School of War. Colonel Pétain tried to profess the obvious: Fire kills^[10]But the lieutenant-colonel de Grandmaison claimed that only an excessive offensive could win the decision: his theories find a wide echo. And indeed, the 1894 regulations took up the bold recommendations of the 1887 regulations. With this type of tactic it is not necessary to protect oneself from the views of the adversary, quite the contrary. It is also understandable why an ingenious invention made in France in 1912 by Commander Kopenhagen did not see the light of day. He had invented the idea of the camouflage net - the shelter net in his own words - and had a few examples made, which were tried out in 1913. But the General Staff did not hold back this invention which was taken up again, in front of the necessities, in 1915.^[11].

Finally, a commission chaired by General Dubail developed a new grey-blue uniform, adopted in May 1914 by the Superior Council of War. It was not until 9 July 1914 that the Chamber voted to replace the overly conspicuous sheets, the object of so many quarrels, with a new neutral-coloured sheet. It should be noted that Jaurès was opposed to this reform and therefore to the abolition of the madder trousers because of the size of the expense.^[12]. The new sheet project, called tricolour, is in fact a grey colour thanks to a mix of white, blue and red threads. The red is obtained by the German alizarin... The war causes the stop of the imports of the German chemical products and this new sheet is never put into service....

From "horizon blue" to camouflaged clothing.

As soon as the war broke out, the textile industry was faced with huge orders which rose from 110,000 linear metres per month at the end of 1914 to 2,032,180 in October 1917. In spite of this, many purchases had to be made abroad, particularly in Great Britain. As early as September 1914, a sheet was put into production with blue and white wool [13]. It is this sheet which is named originally "light blue sheet" which becomes "horizon blue" after the newspaper L'Illustration called it so on January 16, 1915. This uniform would put an end to the war of panache, shiny uniforms, golden buttons and silver helmets [which] would get stuck in the trenches, get covered with mud, wash out the colours ^[14].

It is not because more or less wall-hugging outfits have been adopted that we can speak of camouflaged outfits. During the First World War in particular, it was more a question of camouflage of equipment or of the layout of the grounds. It is interesting to give the chronology of the diffusion of camouflage in the military world [15].

This "blue-horizon" colour had been a stopgap measure. It had only received Joffre's approval by default because the industry was unable to supply enough khaki sheets. France adopted khaki in 1921. During the First World War, there were no plans to use camouflage cloth for the uniforms of the combatants, despite a few attempts. It was not until the 1930s. In 1937 in Italy, jumping gowns were cut from a tent fabric called tela mimetizzate designed in 1929. Also in 1937, the Waffen SS experimented with a camouflaged jacket, and during the war the Germans made extensive use of camouflage outfits. In 1936, the first camouflaged British fabric was made for anti-gas pilgrims, then this type of fabric became widespread among British paratroopers in 1943. The Americans developed a fabric with small spots in 1942. These outfits were mainly used in the Pacific, but in fact, during the Second World War, single-coloured fabrics were in the majority. For France, with the exception of two parachute battalions of the Free French Forces equipped with camouflaged outfits - and this is really an epiphenomenon - we have to wait until the end of 1944 to find the first official text on camouflage clothing.

After 1945, camouflage clothing was more common in the French army, especially for troops serving overseas, but it may be necessary to find the first official text on camouflage clothing.but perhaps this should be seen more as a need to use British or American stocks in times of shortage than as a real deliberate choice. This was the case until 1951 when the first specifically French camouflaged fabric was created, reserved as a priority for parachutists. In 1962, camouflaged outfits - also called leopard - were removed from the service. At the end of the Algerian war, they seemed to carry a connotation of putsch and power taken by certain soldiers. But France was an isolated case because many armies used camouflage clothing, in whole or in part depending on the unit: United States, Warsaw Pact, Great Britain, Switzerland, African countries. It was not until the Gulf War that a colourful outfit - the term camouflage is banned - was introduced in France in 1991, followed shortly afterwards by another green-brown outfit known as "Central Europe".

Today, all the armies of the world are equipped with camouflaged uniforms. It is possible to ask an iconoclastic question: do they really serve to make the fighter invisible in the eyes of his opponent? To sum up, do camouflage outfits still have a meaning today? The means of detection are such - from infrared to light intensifiers to thermal cameras - that the fighter has difficulty hiding behind his camouflaged fabric [16].

On the other hand, this camouflaged outfit is an excellent means of reconnaissance: this uniform carries within it the connotation of an elite soldier: the camouflaged outfit is heir to the paratroopers and their glory. Today, there is a reversal of direction, the camouflage uniform is emblematic. For the Americans, it is the uniform of the world's gendarmes, from the general to the ordinary soldier. In the French army, which has just seen the disappearance of conscription and has become more professional, this reversal of direction is also important. This professional army is an elite army and the colourful outfit - or the cam outfit. - is, perhaps, a means of recruitment and retention.

What about honour and glory? Is that anachronistic? Few situations are truly set in stone, and many opposing viewpoints still exist today. With a great leap in time let us go from 1914 to very recent conflicts: the Gulf War and the operations in the former Yugoslavia.Indeed, it might seem that our society is alien to these quarrels of another time, yet recent examples would tend to prove otherwise. Three can be cited, at the limit of history and journalism, which show that the resources of the human spirit are hardly renewed in this perception of the honour of war.

Even today, not all methods of combat are honourable. In 1991, the media and public opinion were moved to see American tanks burying Iraqi soldiers alive in their trenches. This was not made clear in the articles, but there was a judgment based on known bases; it was not a humane, clean, honourable way to kill an adversary. In other times Bayard had harquebus bearers executed...

Even today, cunning is often synonymous with a lack of honour. The message of the Chief of Staff of the French Army, in May 1995, concerning the taking of hostages among French troops under a UN mandate, highlights terms such as "félonie" and "treachery";it is said that the attackers "used cunning", "disguising themselves" toenter the Vrbanja post. ^[17].

Even today, some weapons are still to be discarded. While we can understand the fight against anti-personnel mines for so-called humanitarian reasons linked mainly to their action after a conflict on civilian populations, it is more difficult to understand the desire to ban weapons using laser beams. Various questions put by French parliamentarians to the Minister of Defence in 1995 described these weapons as "inhumane" because they can cause blindness among the victims.^[18]. Would an arrow or a piece of shrapnel in the eye be more humane than a laser beam? .

Are we finally far from the quarrels about the colour of trousers at the beginning of this century? Are we far from that little sentence found in the newspaper L' Illustration of April 12 , 1890:Smokeless gunpowder iswar without chivalry? There is a certain mimicry there, or perhaps proof of the camouflage of the reality of war which has never been and never will be clean.

[1] Quoted by Erik Durschmied in "La logique dugrain de sable" (p. 205); ed. JC Lattes (translated from English by Gérald Messadié).

^[2] From the beginning of the 1914 war, the need for a helmet was highlighted. The model initially proposed by the painter - another one - Georges Scott is abandoned because its price is too high and its manufacture complex. The project of the Intendant Adrian is carried out by Louis Kuhn, head of the mechanical workshops of the Japy factories, and is industrially produced.

^[3] In 1912, Grand Duke Nicholas, generalissimo of the Russian army, is said to have said during the great French manoeuvres that red trousers no longer had a place on a modern battlefield. See Délpérier, "La belle époque desuniformes", op. cit. (p. 35)

^[4]The most important manufacturer is the Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik. AN carton F12 cited

by L. Delpérier, op. cit. (p. 30)

^[5] Annals of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, Ordinary Sessions 1878, T 2

(p. 126), cited by L. Delpérier, op. cit. (p. 38).

^[6]Newspaper L' Illustration n° 2459 of April 12, 1890. Quoted by L. Delpérier in the catalogue of the exhibition La Belle Epoque des Uniformes, op. cit.

^[7]"Le poteaufrontière" by Chaperon (Salonde 1914). Service historique de l'armée de terre, Pavillon du roi, château de Vincennes. See also "L'armée française vue par les peintres, 1870-1914" by François Robichon, Ed. Herscher, (p. 135 and 142). A post of this type - from the collections of the Musée de l'Armée - was, moreover, displayed in one of the showcases of an exhibition at Orsay a few years ago that placed the painting of this period in its political-military context.

^[8] National Assembly, Rapport Clémentel sur le projet de budget de l'exercice de 1912, page 114. Quoted by L; Delpérier, op. cit. (p. 42). Clémentel was a few years later Clémenceau's minister during the war.

[9] In 1941, the so-called Vichy government launched the production of a package for the 100,000 men of the armistice army, consisting of an outfit for going out and fighting and a sports outfit. But the generalisation of real differentiated outfits - combat, sortie, sport - was only achieved thanks to the American-style package during the rearmament of the French army in North Africa from 1943 onwards.

^[10]Jean Pouget in a book entitled "Un certain capitaineDe Gaulle" (ed. Fayard, 1973) tells how, during the manoeuvres of 1913, Colonel Pétain commanding the 33rd Infantry (where Ch. de Gaulle was a lieutenant) demonstrates to his general how this manoeuvre "presented the synthesis of all the faultsthat a modern army must no longer commit". Indeed the consideration of modern equipment is not made and this notion of fire that you totally forgotten, however the bugles sounded and the flags flapped in the wind.

^[11] Catalogue of the exhibition "André Mare, cubismand camouflage, 1914-1918" notice devoted byG. Aubagnac to this prototype (pp. 21-22), a fragment of which is kept in the Musée de l'Armée in Paris.

^[12] Jaures was however a supporter of a "New Army".Anecdotally, let's recall that the term "New Army"..."New Army" was used, at least three times; first in 1911 by Jaurès who devoted a book to the army and who bears this title; then in 1940 for the armistice army by the Vichy government; finally in 1945 by General de Lattre who re-founded an army after the amalgamation.

[13] 15 % dark blue wool, 50 % light blue wool and 35 % unbleached wool.

^[14]Danielle Lelouche "Cubism and Camouflage", Revue Guerresmondiales et conflits contemporains, n°171/1993 (pp. 123 - 137).

[15] See on these topics :

- Lieutenant-Colonel Christian Benoit: "What arecamouflaged outfits for? "in Actes du colloque international " Mimétismes et camouflage " Société géologique de Normandie (Le Havre), Tome 86, fascicules ¾, 3rd/4th quarter 1999.

[16] A new type of camouflage suit to mask a fighter from the view of a thermal camera could be a suit that would mask the heat signature of the individual, producing cold for example ... and then it doesn't matter what color he is in the visible spectrum!

^[17]To be clear, let's understand: we were fooled because the others did not apply the (our!) rules of the game ...

^[18]See in the Official Journal of the French Republic the questions of the parliamentarians No. 23 725, 23 942, 24 632, 24 674 and 25 898 (1995).