On 28 February 1916, amid the global upheaval of World War I and intense political rivalries in several regions, newspapers reported an assassination attempt involving poison gas directed at a political figure. The incident is notable because it appears among the earliest recorded uses of chemical agents specifically in an assassination plot rather than as a military weapon. Sources from the period are fragmentary and sometimes contradictory, and historians caution that aspects of the event—motives, exact chemical agent used, and whether the attempt succeeded in its lethal aims—remain disputed. Context The early 20th century saw growing awareness of chemical agents as instruments of both warfare and clandestine violence. The large-scale use of poison gas on World War I battlefields in 1915–1916 had introduced new anxieties about chemical lethality and contagion. Against this backdrop, reports surfaced of a targeted attack employing poison or toxic fumes against an individual political figure on 28 February 1916. The episode must be understood within regional political tensions and the broader climate of wartime secrecy and propaganda that could shape contemporary reporting. What contemporary accounts say Contemporary newspaper dispatches and police reports (where available) describe the delivery of a toxic substance or gas to a location associated with the target—often an office or private quarters—intended to incapacitate or kill. At least one widely circulated account at the time characterized the delivery as deliberate and framed it as an assassination attempt rather than an accidental exposure. Details vary: some reports mention a foul odor and immediate illness among those present, while others note that quick action limited casualties. The specific agent is almost never identified with certainty in contemporaneous reports; witnesses and reporters lacked the forensic capability to accurately name chemical compounds. Historiographical caution Later historians and scholars referencing the 28 February 1916 incident emphasize caution. Primary sources can reflect sensational reporting, wartime propaganda, or incomplete forensic understanding. Scholarly treatments that discuss the case note that it is difficult to confirm unequivocally whether the attack used a militarized chemical agent (such as chlorine or phosgene) or a different toxic substance (e.g., a volatile poison) delivered in a confined space. Some researchers suggest that the event should be read as part of a pattern of politically motivated attempts involving poison—an established assassination method since the 19th century—rather than a direct precursor to large-scale chemical warfare. Significance Even with uncertainties, the 28 February 1916 report is historically significant for illustrating how fear of chemical agents permeated public consciousness during World War I and how such agents were imagined or employed in political violence. The episode highlights the overlap between military innovations and clandestine political tactics, and it underscores challenges historians face when piecing together events recorded under duress, censorship, or sensationalist reporting. Uncertainties and further research Key unresolved questions include identifying the precise chemical or toxic agent used, establishing a definitive chain of responsibility, and determining the full outcome for the intended target. Researchers interested in following up should consult contemporaneous newspaper archives, police and court records from the relevant jurisdiction (if accessible), diplomatic correspondence of the period, and later scholarly analyses that critically assess primary materials. Because documentation is incomplete and sometimes contradictory, any definitive claims about particulars should be framed as provisional. In short, the February 28, 1916 report stands as an early—and historically ambiguous—example of an alleged poison-gas assassination attempt, important more for what it reveals about wartime fears and political violence than for a fully verifiable factual record of method and consequence.