AHC: Germans use Nerve Gas in WW2

I'll hypothesise a use scenario.

By 1939 minor changes in the German racial construction of "German" and "Inhuman" lead to a view that Slavs are not fully fit for labour, and are closer to "life-unworthy-of-life" than they are to a useful slave class. The 1941 plan still proceeds with the expectation of limited armies of agricultural slaves in the occupied areas, but more emphasis is placed on the total elimination of Slavs behind the expected 1941 stop line (Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov). Extending from "by starvation" to "by starvation and other means as appropriate."

In 1941 the use of Nerve Gas is suggested to
*Test equipment readiness, doctrine, and combat capacity of gas warfare units
*Reduce the excess population of Soviet POWs

While the first makes sense in any condition, the second requires more explanation. IOTL Soviet POWs were systematically starved and reduced by disease. Some were sent to death camps. Many were death marched. It should be a small step, if such a large mass of able-bodied military age men exist, and if they're considered as life-unworthy-of-life rather than as potential slave labour (despite "acceptable losses"), to test gas weapons on them in the large open air holding camps.

Some of the conditions required for use are met, a war between a Western power and a "racially inferior other;" no operational friction caused by limiting advance or manoeuvre; and, an expectation of disproportionate capacity such that OPFOR is not expected to be able to significantly respond in kind.

In late 1941 gas warfare becomes a standard part of "anti-partisan" operations, including the clearing of areas of Slavs and Jews as part of the ongoing genocide in the East.

This ramifies as nerve gassing is viewed as a supplemental ghetto clearing option. By 1943 most Police Battalions are well versed in gas warfare. This is incidentally when the now "gas friendly" genocidal portions of the German state force gas as part of defensive operations.

Prior to late 1943, gas had not been considered for use against Soviet forces in the field. Soviet doctrine, while well aware by mid 1942 of the systematic genocide of Soviet POWs, has used this to play the pity card internationally; and for normal military reasons has restricted its own use of gas warfare to heightened preparations, and preparation for retaliation.

So, in late 1943 on the defensive, the Police Battalions, the "Dad's Army" of the Reich, start using gas in defensive operations. The military effectiveness of this action is extremely limited after the first use; but, it creates a sticky slow operational situation in the East. Soviet retaliation is limited and judicious, bearing in mind that the major requirement is to force Germans to be gas prepared also; rather than viewing Gas as achieving anything significant.

Use rapidly spreads at this point to anti-partisan operations in Greece and Yugoslavia where the racial opinion of partisans, and the brutality of partisan warfare, are similar to the East.

The rest kind of writes itself; though, I doubt that the Soviet Union will attempt to reduce Koenigsberg, Budapest or Berlin by gas. It will certainly give more "justification" in the impetus to the revenge and power in the second line Soviet troops' actions towards women in occupied Poland and Germany.

I doubt it will significantly change the long-term Soviet occupation strategy of selective and limited trials. In the longer term social-democrats, and "national" communists are also threats to maintaining Stalinist, pro-Moscow rule.

This might change the tenor of the West's involvement in the show-trials. The rediscovery of the role of Police Battalions in the Holocaust is unlikely to happen, the connection with a gas centred narrative will be fairly clear.

yours,
Sam R.
 
It seems to me that any scenario in which Chemical or Biological weapons are unleashed, regardless of the initiator, results in Germany being curbstomped even worse than in OTL. It's all about industrial capacity and the ability to deliver. Germany was fighting the majority of the world's industry; if the taboo were broken, enough such weapons could be unleashed on her that Hitler's sought-after Gotterdammerung might have become a reality. It's a good thing for all concerned that the taboo held.
 
I believe Hitler did order the use of gases against the Soviets, when they were advancing westward.

And the order was simply disobeyed.

Other way around, his generals wanted to use it as a final trump card and Hitler forbade it.

Even when the Soviets neared Berlin, Adolf Hitler was against using tabun as the final trump card, a decision which stemmed from his own experience with chemical weapons in World War I.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Having Germany use Tabun or their other nerve agents in WW2 isn't that hard, but it would require a different leader then Hitler or the Soviet's to use gas first or something along those lines.

Hitler went blind from a gas attack for three days and didn't want soldiers going through that again. Hell one could write a book purely on how Hitler's experiences in WW1 effected how he waged WW2.
 
Sociologists have taken to calling this the "Google Effect". Why bother to undertake basic research and remember the resulting information when you can simply ask Google instead? In this case, you, I, and the others are Google. The OP needn't bother to think, search, or remember, all he needs to do is ask us.

As if looking up websites about a given subject through Google and then reading them isn't basic research...? I fail to see any real difference with, say, finding a book on a subject and reading that except that one is considerably cheaper, faster, and easier (ie., more basic), particularly if you're just looking up some minor detail or finding the answer to some unimportant question. Besides, if you wanted a good book on some subject, you're want to search that subject first, just so that you could find out what the good books on the subject *were*.

In any case, the search function here is notoriously failure prone, and search engines can have problems trying to figure out what you want as opposed to what you say, something that actual people have fewer problems with. For instance, I just tried searching for "German nerve gas world war 2" twice, under the assumption that someone who would want to ask this question would not know what Operation Vegetarian was, and both times the server burped up a 500 error; hardly helpful to someone who doesn't already know the answer to their question! Google searches suggested that the reason chemical warfare wasn't used was because Germany was afraid of the Allies being able to respond in kind on a much larger scale, not because of Operation Vegetarian or similar initiatives. Similarly, I also delved into the last 5 pages of archives to see if there actually were any threads about German chemical warfare, and I believe I saw one about World War I and one thread about Operation Vegetarian; but my hypothetically ignorant poster would not know to connect the latter to German nerve gas (or chemical warfare) use, as they are ignorant, after all. So searches, thinking (I mean what, you think people would just come up with the idea of Britain anthraxing Germany on their own?), or archive-delving aren't going to help the hypothetical ignorant poster, since the first is broken, the second is...failure-prone, and the last is often empty. Thus, the post asks their question.

In any event, I certainly would encourage people who have questions, even small ones, about alternate space flight to ask them, rather than languish in ignorance because of a fear of being arrogantly and rudely treated, something which (alas) too many people here and elsewhere seem to feel is warranted towards someone who has a genuine, if basic, question, or towards anyone who asks questions rather than simply sitting, quietly, unknowing.
 
Other way around, his generals wanted to use it as a final trump card and Hitler forbade it.



Having Germany use Tabun or their other nerve agents in WW2 isn't that hard, but it would require a different leader then Hitler or the Soviet's to use gas first or something along those lines.

Hitler went blind from a gas attack for three days and didn't want soldiers going through that again. Hell one could write a book purely on how Hitler's experiences in WW1 effected how he waged WW2.

Yet he happily used chemical weapons against defenseless civilians in the extermination camps? I'm really dubious that Hitler held off using chemical weapons for humanitarian reasons, he had no qualms about many other atrocities.

I think that the main reasons were strategic- he knew that the Allies had equal, if not likely greater stocks of chemical weapons such as mustard gas, and the Germans were unsure if they really did have the lead in the nerve agents. Furthermore, towards the end of the war Germany lacked the means to effectively deliver nerve agents- the Luftwaffe was no longer an effective offensive force, and the V-2 couldn't carry a worthwhile quantity of chemical payload.
 
As if looking up websites about a given subject through Google and then reading them isn't basic research...? I fail to see any real difference with, say, finding a book on a subject and reading that except that one is considerably cheaper, faster, and easier (ie., more basic), particularly if you're just looking up some minor detail or finding the answer to some unimportant question. Besides, if you wanted a good book on some subject, you're want to search that subject first, just so that you could find out what the good books on the subject *were*.

In any case, the search function here is notoriously failure prone, and search engines can have problems trying to figure out what you want as opposed to what you say, something that actual people have fewer problems with. For instance, I just tried searching for "German nerve gas world war 2" twice, under the assumption that someone who would want to ask this question would not know what Operation Vegetarian was, and both times the server burped up a 500 error; hardly helpful to someone who doesn't already know the answer to their question! Google searches suggested that the reason chemical warfare wasn't used was because Germany was afraid of the Allies being able to respond in kind on a much larger scale, not because of Operation Vegetarian or similar initiatives. Similarly, I also delved into the last 5 pages of archives to see if there actually were any threads about German chemical warfare, and I believe I saw one about World War I and one thread about Operation Vegetarian; but my hypothetically ignorant poster would not know to connect the latter to German nerve gas (or chemical warfare) use, as they are ignorant, after all. So searches, thinking (I mean what, you think people would just come up with the idea of Britain anthraxing Germany on their own?), or archive-delving aren't going to help the hypothetical ignorant poster, since the first is broken, the second is...failure-prone, and the last is often empty. Thus, the post asks their question.

In any event, I certainly would encourage people who have questions, even small ones, about alternate space flight to ask them, rather than languish in ignorance because of a fear of being arrogantly and rudely treated, something which (alas) too many people here and elsewhere seem to feel is warranted towards someone who has a genuine, if basic, question, or towards anyone who asks questions rather than simply sitting, quietly, unknowing.

Thanks, you've summarized my thoughts as well. It's an internet forum, it doesn't hurt if some threads are doubled up over time, or people discuss topics at various levels of expertise. Many of us have no formal education in history, and we're only here for fun after all.
 
Yet he happily used chemical weapons against defenseless civilians in the extermination camps? I'm really dubious that Hitler held off using chemical weapons for humanitarian reasons, he had no qualms about many other atrocities.

The History Channel had on a good special recienly about the Himmler and Hitler and the Final Solution. Hitler didn't want to know the particulars of how Himmler was carrying it out and Himmler would often have to repreatley revise his reports to Hitler to tone down the reports. Hitler didn't want the particulars he just wanted to know the 'job' was being done.

How could such a person who is ok with the mass murder of innocents not be ok with the gassing of soldiers? He had already written off those in the camps as not human. And, even if he considered the Red Army somewhat less then human as well he didn't want his own soldiers being gassed in response. Plus, by the end he admitted the Slavs were greater then the Germans and using his own Darwinin views the greater race should dominate if not eradicate the weaker race.
 
Other way around, his generals wanted to use it as a final trump card and Hitler forbade it....

I've already said my source on this is a book I read about a decade ago, in a university library I no longer live near. I can't name it.

But it makes sense.

After all the book included but did not restrict itself to German military thinking; I explained the reasoning of American officers as recounted there.

Basically, using gas as a war weapon was a bad idea. Using it to exterminate helpless noncombatants would be somewhat more "reasonable" from a cost/benefit point of view--though civil populations too could take measures to protect themselves. (Not if taken by complete surprise of course). Officers hated it because it deprived them of more conventional weapons they felt were more effective in winning battles.

So of course, relying on accounts of German officers after the war explaining why they always dragged their feet on the subject of poison gasses is somewhat suspicious since after the war they'd want to blame everything they could on Hitler. But Hitler sticking to his refusal to countenance gas attacks during the collapse of the German forces is also suspicious, while his issuing an insane and unworkable order, and the military and procurement machinery losing that order to save themselves yet another pointless headache when they were at death's door anyway--that sounds like the Hitler I know of.

I'd have to find my source and reread it and track down it's sources and see what scholarship thinks of them today.

But the Wikipedia link provides no references to sources of its assertion Hitler held firm to his earlier position right up to the end.

Anyway my understanding of things explains why, in a total war to the death, fought by people who had gone ahead and used gas war in the last such war, none of the great powers ever actually used any chemical weapons on each other. Backing up any sentimental horror at weapons simply too awful to use was the hard-headed calculation that they weren't even very good weapons to win a war with. To exterminate helpless people with yes, not to defeat a foe even roughly equivalent technically.
 
I think if he were to use it on the jews instead of the Zyclon B gas or carbon monoxide in the gas chambers, then I think the result of the war would not have changed, besides the fact we would hate Hitler a lot more now. But if Hitler did not use them in concentration camps, then I think that maybe he would use it against the Americans on D-Day, having them flyover head spray the gas and perhaps stopping D-Day. (Just a possibility)
 
Top