Trenches, Gas, Tanks, and ... Anthrax?

Quite a while ago I read that during World War 1, both the British and Germans were experimenting with biological weapons for military use. Specifically, they were looking at smallpox and anthrax. How can we get these diseases used as weapons before the war's end?

I suppose one could argue that without the example of Influenza to show how easily epidemics can cross the trenchlines the governments in question would be more willing to use Smallpox. Still, I imagine the potential risk would be pretty obvious, so this is a big stretch.

Much more likely, IMHO, is the use of Anthrax. The great thing about anthrax is that it doesn't jump from person to person. In theory, you coat a spot with it, and everyone going through it for the next decade or so gets sick, but can't spread it to your soldiers later if captured.

The question may be why it wasn't used in OTL. It is perfectly possible the science of the time lacked necessary understanding, or that there was no effective means of delivery. To be honest, I just don't know.

Does anyone have any ideas?

The basic issue is that anthrax (as well as most other biowar weapons) is a very poor tactical weapon, but an excellent strategic one. This, when combined with the extremely primitive medicine of the WWI period, and the ease with which anthrax could be spread back to the 'first user', makes it a less than desirable strategic weapon, as there is very little that you can do to your enemy that he cannot do right back to you...

"The basic issue is that anthrax (as well as most other biowar weapons) is a very poor tactical weapon, but an excellent strategic one. This, when combined with the extremely primitive medicine of the WWI period, and the ease with which anthrax could be spread back to the 'first user', makes it a less than desirable strategic weapon, as there is very little that you can do to your enemy that he cannot do right back to you..."

Granted. However, much the same could be said for poison gas. After the first couple uses, both sides were so prepared for it that gas had little effect other than to make the war even more horrible than it would otherwise have been. By that point, though, neither side could afford to stop using it, as that would leave an advantage to the enemy, if only a marginal one.

Assuming the capability existed, all that is really required (as far as I can see) is that the high command of one side or the other believe that anthrax use could help lead to the end of the war. Once it starts, it won't stop until the fighting does.

Admiral Matt said:

"

Granted. However, much the same could be said for poison gas. After the first couple uses, both sides were so prepared for it that gas had little effect other than to make the war even more horrible than it would otherwise have been. By that point, though, neither side could afford to stop using it, as that would leave an advantage to the enemy, if only a marginal one.

Assuming the capability existed, all that is really required (as far as I can see) is that the high command of one side or the other believe that anthrax use could help lead to the end of the war. Once it starts, it won't stop until the fighting does.

Click to expand...

Which is probably why it wasn't used. Poison gas didn't work out nearly as well as they thought so....

If they had we might have areas of France contaminated for years. Ironic, if they were kept secret so as to stop an invader and still effective in 1940.

What about the Germans' use of anthrax dispensed by secret agents in the US during 1916 to infect and kill of large nos. of horses and mules scheduled for shipment to the Allies on the Western Front ?

Germany's last resort.

Or how about this idea.
Lets assume that Germany has fully developed anthrax in large quantities packed into artillery shells by the time USA enters the war. Since Germany had essentially won the war in the East, and they know that they cannot compete with fresh American manpower, they decide to make a permanent border with France in French trenches. They stock up anthrax shells and in the greatest bombardment ever they infect an area right were French lines start. Let's say they infect the widest area they can along the whole border with France and Belgium. After that they go completly on the defensive, with absolutly no offense what's so ever. While maintaining their front in the West, they consolidate the East. What happens now?

The wind blows west to east, and Germany is wiped out by their own barrier...

An exaggeration of course, but you get the idea...

Well, I'm not sure. That would have to happen after the failure of the last German offensives, when it was obvious to the high command that the war would be lost. Even then, I'm not sure it could or would be done on such a scale. Either way, the Germans would still lose. They might earn themselves a harsh peace though.

Hey, that gives me an idea: If the US wasn't offering a peace without victors, wouldn't Germany be much more likely to use such desperate measures? Let's say Wilson has a stroke shortly before the Zimmerman Telegram and his VP enters the war at the same time as OTL, but with a much less conciliatory stance. Could that work?

It might be easier to have this occur on the Eastern Front, especially after the fall of the government. The Germans could get away with a lot more in there.

"The wind blows west to east, and Germany is wiped out by their own barrier...

An exaggeration of course, but you get the idea..."

Yeah, if they did anything like that, it would definately be inside of France and Belgium, not where good Germans could get sick.

It doesn't take a lot of anthrax to initiate the disease...and winds can blow spores a long, long way....

I suspect that the use of biowar weapons on such a grand scale would produce a political blowback even worse than the physical one. It is one thing to lose a war (and if the US had been willing ot use its leverage, the peace imposed on the Germans wouldn't have been nearly as harsh as it was), it is quite another to try to kill millions in a vain attempt to try to secure some military advantages. I cannot imagine any civilized nation willing to look the other way if the Germans attempted this sort of thing.

Scott Rosenthal said:

I suspect that the use of biowar weapons on such a grand scale would produce a political blowback even worse than the physical one. It is one thing to lose a war (and if the US had been willing ot use its leverage, the peace imposed on the Germans wouldn't have been nearly as harsh as it was), it is quite another to try to kill millions in a vain attempt to try to secure some military advantages. I cannot imagine any civilized nation willing to look the other way if the Germans attempted this sort of thing.

Click to expand...

What kind of consequenses would that had on the world? Would there be much stricter version of Geneva Convention and rules of War? Could that in any way prevent the development of any WMD? Attitude towards nuclear weapons mught be much worse and maybe it will prevent their development. Assuming of course that Allies subdue Germany after WWI and do not allow it to turn Nazis...

One can never be sure about these things, but I suspect that when the Allies finished off the Germans, it wouldn't have been through an armistice, but rather through conquest. If Germany was permitted to remain in one piece, it wouldn't be left with anything near the territorial and industrial integrity (such as it was) that it retained in OTL.

Regarding interntional agreements...biowar was already 'illegal' following WWI, so I don't se much that could (or would) be done there. On the other hand, the temptation to make a real 'example' of Germany might have the desired effect...