AHC: Make Nazis win WW2

Why do you assume Gudenstein was talking about Mustard Gas? The Germans had Tabun during WWII. They didn't use it for exactly the reason suggested, fear of retaliation.

The kicker is that the British only could retaliate with mustard gas. Could tabun have won the Nazis the war if they had used it? I think so. It may take 4 x the amount of tabun as sarin, but still. The Germans had enough of it by wars end to theoretically kill millions.
 
The kicker is that the British only could retaliate with mustard gas. Could tabun have won the Nazis the war if they had used it? I think so. It may take 4 x the amount of tabun as sarin, but still. The Germans had enough of it by wars end to theoretically kill millions.

Yes and they didn't use it, even when the Red Army was storming into Germany they still held back, so if you want to advocate them changing that policy you'll need a pretty good POD. Also by the time of the wars end the British had the means to retaliate via Operation Vegetarian, the British being the ones who did weaponize Anthrax. It needs to be borne in mind that in 1939 Britain went to war believing the Luftwaffe would rain destruction on the country with explosives and gas, laying waste to whole cities, it did not stop them then and I doubt chemical weapon strikes are going to make them want to do anything except retaliate.
I honestly believe that Germany's best chances for winning WWII are all pre Barbarossa, so Tabun/Anthrax is moot anyway. I still think the best PODs lie outside the realm of German military action. A genuinely neutral USA in 1940 that leaves Britain with no hope of support or pretty much anyone except Churchill in Number 10 and maybe Germany can make a deal to end the war in the West. Problem then is that Hitler is going to turn east sooner or later and the death toll is going to be appalling if Germany wins. At best the Poles, Ukrainians et al. could expect to be worked to death as slave labour, at worst they get to join the Jews in outright extermination.
 
The kicker is that the British only could retaliate with mustard gas. Could tabun have won the Nazis the war if they had used it? I think so. It may take 4 x the amount of tabun as sarin, but still. The Germans had enough of it by wars end to theoretically kill millions.
True, but not by the wars beginning. For a 1937 Discovery they moved quite quickly on it in OTL. A workable pod would need to change research priorities even earlier.
The reason why they didn’t use it IOTL was because the Germans believed the allies had it as well and when Germany had it in quantity, their foes controlled the skies. It was not true However. The inventor lied to Hitler. Quite a brave thing to do.
 
my view N-Stoff was much more dangerous than the other chemical weapons, IF they could have added some amount to their incendiary weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride

my understanding they attempted to use it as fuel (!) and in flamethrowers (!!) when it MIGHT have been possible to add it in near minute amounts to incendiaries, the use of water and sand would prove ineffective.
 
Yes and they didn't use it, even when the Red Army was storming into Germany they still held back, so if you want to advocate them changing that policy you'll need a pretty good POD. Also by the time of the wars end the British had the means to retaliate via Operation Vegetarian, the British being the ones who did weaponize Anthrax. It needs to be borne in mind that in 1939 Britain went to war believing the Luftwaffe would rain destruction on the country with explosives and gas, laying waste to whole cities, it did not stop them then and I doubt chemical weapon strikes are going to make them want to do anything except retaliate.
I honestly believe that Germany's best chances for winning WWII are all pre Barbarossa, so Tabun/Anthrax is moot anyway. I still think the best PODs lie outside the realm of German military action. A genuinely neutral USA in 1940 that leaves Britain with no hope of support or pretty much anyone except Churchill in Number 10 and maybe Germany can make a deal to end the war in the West. Problem then is that Hitler is going to turn east sooner or later and the death toll is going to be appalling if Germany wins. At best the Poles, Ukrainians et al. could expect to be worked to death as slave labour, at worst they get to join the Jews in outright extermination.

Except that chemical weapons are much more tested than anthrax weapons. Back to the AEROSIL bit, in retrospect, it remains unclear how dangerous weaponized anthrax (perhaps even in its most sophisticated form) might actually be. After all, the Aum Shinrikyo purportedly released thousands of gallons of it over Tokyo according to for example cnn. No mass deaths.

The Sverdlovsk anthrax leak, approximately 100 people died according to wikipedia. Not many.

Chemical weapons? There is a bit more data on them out there (e.g. Halabja chemical attack). Whereas with operation vegetarian, pure conjecture. When wikipedia says that it could kill millions, in all honesty, that is entirely baseless.

Just as likely vegetarian turns into a colossal failure all the while tabun is dropping from the skies, and the British are left with mustard gas as their only other recourse.

Besides, really, the best thing to do is not dawn the idiot hat as Hitler did and fight a war against both the USSR, British and US, at the same time. Easily done. Let the USSR into the axis. Don't declare war on the US, or provoke them with submarine attacks. Maybe the USSR even sells oil to Japan.

Next, you simply use chemical weapons on British cities to make the British surrender. You can demand anything you want from them in short order.

True, but not by the wars beginning. For a 1937 Discovery they moved quite quickly on it in OTL. A workable pod would need to change research priorities even earlier.
The reason why they didn’t use it IOTL was because the Germans believed the allies had it as well and when Germany had it in quantity, their foes controlled the skies. It was not true However. The inventor lied to Hitler. Quite a brave thing to do.

Trying to find a way to win against the US is a real exercise in futility. However, as we know, it is more than possible to keep them out of the war with the Nazis. Simply not using the German navy basically assures they cannot be drawn in. In addition, the Nazis could let the Soviets into the axis until such time as the British have been knocked out of the way. Then they can simply backstab them.

Are you talking about Ambros or Schrader? Ambros did apparently lie to Hitler, but he wasn't the inventor. In truth inventors. The patent for tabun, reichspatent 767 830, lists multiple contributors. Gerhard Schräder and Hans Gebhardt
 
Except that chemical weapons are much more tested than anthrax weapons. Back to the AEROSIL bit, in retrospect, it remains unclear how dangerous weaponized anthrax (perhaps even in its most sophisticated form) might actually be. After all, the Aum Shinrikyo purportedly released thousands of gallons of it over Tokyo according to for example cnn. No mass deaths.

The Sverdlovsk anthrax leak, approximately 100 people died according to wikipedia. Not many.

Chemical weapons? There is a bit more data on them out there (e.g. Halabja chemical attack). Whereas with operation vegetarian, pure conjecture. When wikipedia says that it could kill millions, in all honesty, that is entirely baseless.

Just as likely vegetarian turns into a colossal failure all the while tabun is dropping from the skies, and the British are left with mustard gas as their only other recourse.

Besides, really, the best thing to do is not dawn the idiot hat as Hitler did and fight a war against both the USSR, British and US, at the same time. Easily done. Let the USSR into the axis. Don't declare war on the US, or provoke them with submarine attacks. Maybe the USSR even sells oil to Japan.

Next, you simply use chemical weapons on British cities to make the British surrender. You can demand anything you want from them in short order.



Trying to find a way to win against the US is a real exercise in futility. However, as we know, it is more than possible to keep them out of the war with the Nazis. Simply not using the German navy basically assures they cannot be drawn in. In addition, the Nazis could let the Soviets into the axis until such time as the British have been knocked out of the way. Then they can simply backstab them.

Are you talking about Ambros or Schrader? Ambros did apparently lie to Hitler, but he wasn't the inventor. In truth inventors. The patent for tabun, reichspatent 767 830, lists multiple contributors. Gerhard Schräder and Hans Gebhardt
You are right about Ambros/Schrader. Developer more than inventor.
The sverdlovsk leak maybe not. 100 people dead when no efforts were taken to distribute the spores. Thats chilling.
 
Maybe if Mannerheim was overthrown and the Finnish had marched won Leningrad it could end the siege in the north and possibly help the nazi capture Moscow.

Getting someone to "overthrow" Mannerheim would be highly unlikely. He was very well liked by most people in and outside of power in Finland by 1941. In fact he was after the Winter War seen as practically indispensable by everyone but the far left. And he wasn't a dictator, after all, but the Finnish democratic political leadership that had appointed him to his position as the Finnish C-in-C generally agreed with him about Leningrad.

IMO the only semi-realistic way to get the Finns to march on Leningrad (and to face all the trouble that would bring along) in support of Nazi Germany would require somehow removing Mannerheim from the equation already in the early 30s, and then having a successful far-right coup in Finland before the war, and then having this authoritarian/Fascist Finland by some miracle survive the *Winter War (it would be significantly more difficult than IOTL, given that this would now be a bitterly divided nation), and then having it ally with the Germans as an enthusiastic partner in 40-41. But this Finland would be weaker than the OTL Finland (due to internal disagreement between the right and the left) also in going to *Barbarossa, so realistically the Finnish forces attacking Leningrad would have to be heavily supported by German troops on the Karelian isthmus as well. This TL would include various butterflies since the early 30s, though, ones that would necessarily stir the pot somewhat.
 
Last edited:
Besides, really, the best thing to do is not dawn the idiot hat as Hitler did and fight a war against both the USSR, British and US, at the same time. Easily done. Let the USSR into the axis. Don't declare war on the US, or provoke them with submarine attacks. Maybe the USSR even sells oil to Japan.

So basically just have Germany be not-Nazis, not the most original thesis. One of the fundamental goals of the Nazi regime was the conquest of the USSR and the liquidation of its population to colonize it with Germans.

Next, you simply use chemical weapons on British cities to make the British surrender. You can demand anything you want from them in short order.

Ignoring the fact yet again that Britain went to war in 1939 expecting this exact thing to happen, and providing no POD for why Germany radically changes a policy it stuck to even when the 'Soviet hordes' were on their doorstep.
 
World War Two - the brief conflict between Germany and the Western Alliance of France and England that ended with a negotiated peace.

World War Three - the disastrous conflict in which Nazi Germany was destroyed a few years later.
 
So basically just have Germany be not-Nazis, not the most original thesis. One of the fundamental goals of the Nazi regime was the conquest of the USSR and the liquidation of its population to colonize it with Germans.



Ignoring the fact yet again that Britain went to war in 1939 expecting this exact thing to happen, and providing no POD for why Germany radically changes a policy it stuck to even when the 'Soviet hordes' were on their doorstep.

No, more like fighting the Soviets at the same time as the British is unwise. They could defeat the British, then concentrate on the issue of defeating the Soviets, which would make it a lot easier I imagine.

Even if they somehow expected the devastation that nerve gas entails which I doubt, that does not mean that they will not surrender once it starts. If you want a pod, how about Hitler isn't hit with mustard gas in WWI? And you are ignoring the fact that there were high ranking Nazis like Goebbels who advocated to use chemical weapons after Stalingrad.

You are right about Ambros/Schrader. Developer more than inventor.
The sverdlovsk leak maybe not. 100 people dead when no efforts were taken to distribute the spores. Thats chilling.

True, and that was Soviet anthrax. And purportedly only 100 grams of it. Soviet anthrax used the below.

(The Soviet Union added to its powders resin and a silica dust called Aerosil —a formulation requiring high heat to create nanoparticles, says Alibek. U.S. labs have tested an Aerosil variant called Cab-O-Sil, and declassified U.S. intelligence reports state that Iraq’s chemical and biological warfare labs imported tons of both Cab-O-Sil and Aerosil, also known as “solid smoke,” in the 1980s).

Here is a purported patent for this WO2001072952A1 (Microdroplet cell culture technique) which imo was probably what the Aum Shinrikyo anthrax was missing. My question is why would the British anthrax fair better than the Aum Shinrikyo anthrax. Is there any reason at all to think that vegetarian would be anything other than a abject failure. I am of the opinion no, which means that the Nazis have the British in quite the predicament if they used chemical weapons.
 
No, more like fighting the Soviets at the same time as the British is unwise. They could defeat the British, then concentrate on the issue of defeating the Soviets, which would make it a lot easier I imagine.

Even if they somehow expected the devastation that nerve gas entails which I doubt, that does not mean that they will not surrender once it starts. If you want a pod, how about Hitler isn't hit with mustard gas in WWI? And you are ignoring the fact that there were high ranking Nazis like Goebbels who advocated to use chemical weapons after Stalingrad.

No, I'm asking you to offer a credible reason for Germany to change policy, the old cliché about Hitler not using chemical agents because he was gassed in WWI is tenuous at best. That Goebbels advocated their use simply makes reinforces my point, why would they do things differently?

And if you doubt the British were expecting devastating air attacks including the use of gas from the outbreak of the war then I'm sorry but your wrong. The British had massively overestimated the capabilities of the Luftwaffe and bought into the idea that 'the bomber will always get through'. From the wiki page:

Before war began in 1939, such theories resulted in predictions of hundreds of thousands of casualties from bombing. The military expert Basil Liddell Hart speculated that year, for example, 250,000 deaths and injuries could occur across Britain in the first week. Harold Macmillan wrote in 1956 that he and others around him "thought of air warfare in 1938 rather as people think of nuclear war today".

This apocalyptic vision had even made its way into popular culture, check out the 1936 film 'Things to Come'.

Sure maybe the British might just fold in the face of actual gas bombing, though I wonder how much Tabun Germany had in 1940, but it's more of a wish than a clear POD.
 
No, I'm asking you to offer a credible reason for Germany to change policy, the old cliché about Hitler not using chemical agents because he was gassed in WWI is tenuous at best. That Goebbels advocated their use simply makes reinforces my point, why would they do things differently?

And if you doubt the British were expecting devastating air attacks including the use of gas from the outbreak of the war then I'm sorry but your wrong. The British had massively overestimated the capabilities of the Luftwaffe and bought into the idea that 'the bomber will always get through'. From the wiki page:



This apocalyptic vision had even made its way into popular culture, check out the 1936 film 'Things to Come'.

Sure maybe the British might just fold in the face of actual gas bombing, though I wonder how much Tabun Germany had in 1940, but it's more of a wish than a clear POD.
OTL Germany had minimal Tabun stores in 1940 so not yet a war winner. The British “vegetarian anthrax” were distribute by animals eading the anthrax soaked baits.In 1940 quite bad as the Germans depended on horses, but nothing comparable to aerosolized anthrax.
 
No, I'm asking you to offer a credible reason for Germany to change policy, the old cliché about Hitler not using chemical agents because he was gassed in WWI is tenuous at best. That Goebbels advocated their use simply makes reinforces my point, why would they do things differently?

And if you doubt the British were expecting devastating air attacks including the use of gas from the outbreak of the war then I'm sorry but your wrong. The British had massively overestimated the capabilities of the Luftwaffe and bought into the idea that 'the bomber will always get through'. From the wiki page:



This apocalyptic vision had even made its way into popular culture, check out the 1936 film 'Things to Come'.

Sure maybe the British might just fold in the face of actual gas bombing, though I wonder how much Tabun Germany had in 1940, but it's more of a wish than a clear POD.

Himmler and Heydrich may have but that is just speculation. There is no clear pod really.

And Im sure the Japanese expected it as well. Expecting and experiencing. Two different things.

There wasnt enough tabun in 1940 for British surrender. 1943-44 more like.
 
Himmler and Heydrich may have but that is just speculation. There is no clear pod really.

So basically you have no scenario to offer.

And Im sure the Japanese expected it as well. Expecting and experiencing. Two different things.

The USAAF killed 250,000 in the firebombing raid on Tokyo in March 1945 on a country that basically had been completely crushed and was facing starvation. In the end it took two nuke and the USSR declaring war to get the Japanese to surrender, again there is no reason to simply assume the British would capitulate.

There wasnt enough tabun in 1940 for British surrender. 1943-44 more like.

By which point they are deep in a war with the USSR, a life and death struggle in which they never used Tabun.
 
So basically you have no scenario to offer.



The USAAF killed 250,000 in the firebombing raid on Tokyo in March 1945 on a country that basically had been completely crushed and was facing starvation. In the end it took two nuke and the USSR declaring war to get the Japanese to surrender, again there is no reason to simply assume the British would capitulate.



By which point they are deep in a war with the USSR, a life and death struggle in which they never used Tabun.

  1. Hitler dies in 1940
  2. Goering takes over
  3. Goering doesnt go to war with the US or USSR
  4. Tube alloys continues. The British get a nuke through gaseous diffusion.
  5. They use it. Tabun use follows.
  6. The British wont be able to make another bomb for a year minimum. It becomes apparent that tabun is the more effective WMD. Their first nuke kills in the tens of thousands. By the time their second nuke is ready. The Nazis have unloaded enogh tabun to kill millions.
  7. The British are forced to surrender.
Hirihito began contemplating surrender after the firebombing of Tokyo? The atomic bombings and USSR are not relevant. That was Hirihito. Churchill will cave a lot sooner because he is not a dictator. Millions of British dead. Not like those thsr died in the firebombing of Tokyo. The Nazis have the British dead to rights
 
Last edited:
  1. Hitler dies in 1940
  2. Goering takes over
  3. Goering doesnt go to war with the US or USSR
  4. Tube alloys continues. The British get a nuke through gaseous diffusion.
  5. They use it. Tabun use follows.
  6. The British wont be able to make another bomb for a year minimum. It becomes apparent that tabun is the more effective WMD. Their first nuke kills in the tens of thousands. By the time their second nuke is ready. The Nazis have unloaded enogh tabun to kill millions.
  7. The British are forced to surrender.
Hirihito began contemplating surrender after the firebombing of Tokyo? The atomic bombings and USSR are not relevant. That was Hirihito. Churchill will cave a lot sooner because he is not a dictator. Millions of British dead. Not like those thsr died in the firebombing of Tokyo. The Nazis have the British dead to rights

That's a wishlist more than anything else, especially the convenient assumption about the production rate of British A-bombs and the effectiveness of Tabun as a terror weapon.
 
Top