Would D-DAY still have been attempted if Russia had fallen?

[Mr.Bluenote]

The official estimates from the US military - who would presumably have been in a position to know - disagreed with you.

Well, gas and what have have been around for a long time eventhough it's proven not to work very well. Some people in the services are just to set in their ways...

I believe Scott has nailed it pretty well with his comments. Besides that most modern chemical weapons are not very resistant, which mean that sunlight, rain what have we are reducing and sometimes totally eliminating its effect...

Biological weapons however...

Best regards!

- Bluenote.

 

[Ian the Admin]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p12_Weber.html

"Gas attacks of the size and intensity recommended on these 250 square miles of urban population," the US Army report declared, "might easily kill 5,000,000 people and injure that many more."

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

The IHR (best known as a PR org for domestic Holocaust deniers) is hardly the final (or even a very serious) word on military planning during the war.

The article you cite, specifically refers to an internal Army Chemical Warfare service study. This is roughly akin to asking each service which way THEY think that the war should be pursued. Given the ACWS's obvious institutional interest in the matter, it isn't surprising that they would call for a massive use of chemicals. That the Army did NOT make this official policy (there are a few oblique references to stockpiling, but no cited figures for amounts of types of gases/aerosols to be used) suggests that this document was largely disregarded.

If the US military really believed that massive use of gas against populated areas was the way to go, they would have logically considered its use against isolated Japanese garrisons as a first test case. Strangely enough, they rejected this idea as impractical early on, and decided that going after food supplies (motor oil was considered to be the preferred agent, if you are interested...) would be a preferable alternative. Similar 'semi-'biological techniques (Rice Blast was most commonly suggested) were explored to go after the food supply, as this was considered a far more effective (no less horrible) techique to employ...

 

[Ian the Admin]

The IHR (best known as a PR org for domestic Holocaust deniers) is hardly the final (or even a very serious) word on military planning during the war.

The link is the first one that showed up in my google search with a reference to these figures. As you'll see if you read it, the ultimate source is a pair of American historians who wrote, among other things, a feature in the New York Times about it. Some of it is also, IIRC, in their book "Code-Name Downfall: The Secret Plan to Invade Japan-And Why Truman Dropped the Bomb".

One thing that didn't make it into the book, and was instead published in the Autumn 1997 issue of Military History Quarterly (I know of no copies of this on the net), is that this chemical warfare study was NOT just some wanking by the chemical warfare department. On June 18 1945 the plan was actually signed off on by, IIRC, the joint chiefs.

A couple years after the war ended, the documents were all revised to suggest that the gas plan was "retaliatory" in nature. The historians (Allen and Polmar) found at least one copy of the document where the word "retaliatory" had actually been pencilled in.

 

[Scott Rosenthal]

I noticed that Polmar and Allen (neither of whom is particularly noted for their historical skill, they are primarily naval analysts, albeit quite excellent ones) were listed, which really proves nothing one way or the other. I have little doubt that the documents are genuine (by the way, pencilling in corrections was not uncommon in the days before word processors, but I take your point re: retaliatory vs initiated), but this still demonstrates little. We have LeMay's orders regarding further strategic bombing from July of 1945 (which include NO mention of gas, though they contain almost endless detail regarding further firebombing), The June 5, 1945 AFPAC Staff Study "Preparation for a Decision to Conduct Gas Warfare", which explicitly rejects strategic use of gas (largely for the reasons that I outlined earlier), but which DOES make the case for its tactical use., Stephen MacFarland's "Preparation for What Never Came: Chemical and Biological Warfare in WWII" (Defense Analysis 2 (1986), pg 112) which contains the following quote: "The massive strategic use of gas was not seriously studied, nor proposed by any major leader. The US Army Air Forces, the service most dedicated to strategic warfare was unalterably opposed to the strategic use of gas"

I could go on...

The point here is not whether some empire builders within the military were thinking about the use of gas, no doubt they were. What is clear is that virtually every other bit of documentary evidence (and secondary analysis from serious historians of the period) conclude that the strategic use of gas was simply a non-starter. I have no question that tactical use was considered, and in the event of an invasion, most likely (sigh...). I would also suggest (without any pride in our leaders for considering this) that the use of herbicides against the Japanese rice crop (as well as blights and blasts) was in an advanced stage of planning, and almost certainly would have been used by the time of Operation Coronet. This latter use might qualify as a war crime...

Gas, nope, sorry....

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The link is the first one that showed up in my google search with a reference to these figures. As you'll see if you read it, the ultimate source is a pair of American historians who wrote, among other things, a feature in the New York Times about it. Some of it is also, IIRC, in their book "Code-Name Downfall: The Secret Plan to Invade Japan-And Why Truman Dropped the Bomb".

You above all people must be aware that the first result of a Google search turns up the most frequently viewed link, not the most accurate link.

The military creates plans for everything and has them signed off. That's their job. There was an official war plan for fighting the British, too, but that was not likely to happen. Ditto gassing.

 

[PSG479]

To imagine a Nazi triumph over Russia is truly a nighmare.

Indeed.

There are quite a number of options for Hitler at this point, not too many of them favorable for the Allies.

Among them:
1) Reinforce the Atlantic Wall and even attempt Operation Sealion to take out Britain.
2) Pour more resources into North Africa so that you have Egypt being overrun.
3) Make a backdoor strike at the Allies in the MidEast by sweeping south out of the Caucauses and into Iran, Turkey, et al.

Due to obvious reasons, American historians tend to focus on the Western Allies' efforts against the Nazis. However, the Soviets were literally tying down dozens and dozens of Wehrmacht & SS divisions that would be fighting elsewhere (aside from garrison & mopup troops) should the Soviets had fallen.