AHC: Have chemical weapons be used on a large-scale in WW2

Whiteshore

Whiteshore

Historically, during the interwar period, a major fear was that the next global conflict would be one involving chemical weapons with the "phoney war" being notable for the large-scale distribution of gas masks, but aside from some small-scale instances in the Eastern Front and by the Japanese in China, chemical weapons were not used in WW2, so your challenge is for chemical weapons to be used on a large scale during the Second World War akin to the usage of gas in WW1. How would usage of gas affect the war?
 
Last edited:

Jukra

Whiteshore said:
Historically, during the interwar period, a major fear was that the next global conflict would be one involving chemical weapons with the "phoney war" being notable for the large-scale distribution of gas masks, but aside from some small-scale instances in the Eastern Front and by the Japanese in China, chemical weapons were not used in WW2, so your challenge is for chemical weapons to be used on a large scale during the Second World War akin to the usage of gas in WW1. How would usage of gas affect the war?
Click to expand...

I think the best initial opportunity would be by Luftwaffe against UK during Battle of Britain. Hitler decides the shock of chemical weapons usage will force UK out of the war and British ability to reply is low. This will naturally lead to British counter-usage. German use of chemical weapons will not win BoB for them, on the other hand RAF cannot dose German cities in gas yet.

As for Barbarossa goes, Germany may benefit a lot from use of chemical weapons, enough for a win, I would not be sure. Meantime, RAF BC will continue pummeling Germany and Luftwaffe will make retaliatory raids on UK.

At some point Luftwaffe will introduce nerve gases, effective at first, but the Allies will be able to produce them in quantity. US entry to the war with their superior production capabilities will mean a more destructive strategic bombing campaign.

When the Western Allies make their return on Europe, they will be the winners in use of chemical weapons due to German logistics relying much on horses.

The most significant really long term issue will be ecological. Chemical weapons are nasty stuff which can cause, by themselves or impurities when manufactured (like Agent Orange) various biological long term effects.
 
Last edited:

Lalli

Thing is that Hitler was totally against using of gas in war due his own experiences. So either Hitler doesn't be gassed during WW1 or remove Hitler from power and replace hims by someone else who is willingful use gas on battle.
 
Whiteshore

Whiteshore

Lalli said:
Thing is that Hitler was totally against using of gas in war due his own experiences. So either Hitler doesn't be gassed during WW1 or remove Hitler from power and replace hims by someone else who is willingful use gas on battle.
Click to expand...
So a botched Operation Valkyrie which kills him but fails to take power with someone like Himmler replacing him? Also, this challenge allows for the use of gas in the Pacific War.
 

Jukra

Lalli said:
Thing is that Hitler was totally against using of gas in war due his own experiences. So either Hitler doesn't be gassed during WW1 or remove Hitler from power and replace hims by someone else who is willingful use gas on battle.
Click to expand...

I think a Hitler less squemish about use of gas might be easy to achieve in ATL terms, like you put it. Use of gas in Europe probably means acceptance of use of gas in the Pacific, together with Japanese retribution using biological warfare.
 

b0ned0me

The big problems with gas in a ww2 context are that it messes up your mobility and with bombers it can be delivered a long way. So you don’t want to use it when you are on the advance, and you definitely don’t want to use it when the enemy has air superiority to block your attack and/or retaliate.
That leaves a pretty limited set of circumstances where it’s likely to be worth the ballache of dealing with it. You have to be winning the air war but not concerned about advancing on the ground, secure against retaliation both now and in the foreseeable future, and unconcerned about collateral damage among civilians.
IMO the most ‘ideal’ scenarios would probably be:
  1. add an extra dimension of horror to the big late war fire bombing raids - but at that point it wasn’t needed.
  2. One side or the other gets truly desperate and uses gas shells to disrupt a big offensive on the eastern front despite knowing there will be horrible payback later
 
ShockTrooper262

ShockTrooper262

To get it used in the Pacific just have the Japanese order commands to use it. Small units used it in Burma and at Guadalcanal at their own digression, though by the point of using it they had already lost most of it due to bombing and battles.
 

Retro_Reaction

Hitler did not use Nerve gas because he was told the allies would also have nerve gas like Tabun and Sarin, being able to manufacture it on a greater scale. So a POD could simply be him not believing it.

A question about delivery is what happens after an Allied bomber loaded with chemical weapons gets shot down over France or the Benelux countries. The allies seemed to try and avoid civilian casualties where possible, so they might be a bit cautious about their delivery.
 
Whiteshore

Whiteshore

b0ned0me said:
IMO the most ‘ideal’ scenarios would probably be:
  1. add an extra dimension of horror to the big late war fire bombing raids - but at that point it wasn’t needed.
  2. One side or the other gets truly desperate and uses gas shells to disrupt a big offensive on the eastern front despite knowing there will be horrible payback later
Click to expand...
You could add a Himmler-led Nazi Germany to this as well ala The Footprint of Mussolini.
 

Michele

One could probably have such a nightmare scenario early on, if one starts with a failed Seelöwe. The Germans, for whatever reason (possibly because they do manage to hurt Fighter Command more than in OTL: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-better-show-in-1940.103866/), do launch a landing operation. That fails, obviously, but not without the British panicking and using gases on the beaches.

Hitler is so angry about this that he overcomes his personal objections against gases and orders reprisal bombings with gases. This escalates out of anybody's control.
 

Michele

Peg Leg Pom said:
It wouldn't be panic that has Britain use gas against an invasion, that was part of the plan.
Click to expand...

Sure it was one of the possibilities envisioned by a contingency plan. Whether that part of the plan gets implemented, IMHO, would depend on panic.
 
juanml82

juanml82

b0ned0me said:
The big problems with gas in a ww2 context are that it messes up your mobility and with bombers it can be delivered a long way. So you don’t want to use it when you are on the advance, and you definitely don’t want to use it when the enemy has air superiority to block your attack and/or retaliate.
That leaves a pretty limited set of circumstances where it’s likely to be worth the ballache of dealing with it. You have to be winning the air war but not concerned about advancing on the ground, secure against retaliation both now and in the foreseeable future, and unconcerned about collateral damage among civilians.
IMO the most ‘ideal’ scenarios would probably be:
  1. add an extra dimension of horror to the big late war fire bombing raids - but at that point it wasn’t needed.
  2. One side or the other gets truly desperate and uses gas shells to disrupt a big offensive on the eastern front despite knowing there will be horrible payback later
Click to expand...
So the Battle of Britain. After all, didn't Goering believe they were always going against the British last 50 fighters? Also, did Germany have persistent agents which could have denied the UK the usage of gassed factories? That could be an additional incentive to use them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top