Allies use Chemical Weapons during the Battle of France

What if shortly after the BEF has evacuated the French use chemical weapons against the German army in a last desperate bid to save themselves.
 

The Vulture

Banned
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Hitler was himself wounded in a gas attack in WWI. He despised the usage of gas and considered it barbaric. That the man was himself barbaric is undeniable, but he had weird codes of conduct.

However, I have no doubts that the Heer would retaliate in kind if gassed, and that the Germans would have an edge in chemical warfare (having recently invented tabun and sarin, among other nerve agents). If the genie was let out of the bottle, war might have gone a bit differently.
 
The chem weapons the Brits & French had at the beginning of WW2 would have made no useful impact on the fighting - and there were real fears of use of gas by aerial bombardment. Had the Brits opened that door the Germans would have retaliated, and very well could have used gas bombs during the Blitz.
 
Not to mention the negative impact the Allied use of these weapons would have on neutral powers, including the USA.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Hitler was himself wounded in a gas attack in WWI. He despised the usage of gas and considered it barbaric. That the man was himself barbaric is undeniable, but he had weird codes of conduct.

He apparently had no problem using it in the camps.

However, whatever his views on gas warfare (and you could be correct), I think the German leadership held off more out of fear that the Allies would massively retaliate with devastating effect on German cities than from the reichschancellor's personal qualms.
 
The chem weapons the Brits & French had at the beginning of WW2 would have made no useful impact on the fighting - and there were real fears of use of gas by aerial bombardment. Had the Brits opened that door the Germans would have retaliated, and very well could have used gas bombs during the Blitz.

Now the standard response for German gas usage is that the Allies would strike back harder, as would be the case on the long run or in a ca. 1942-1945 scenario. But how about 1940 scenario? Would gas increase the power of air strikes to such levels that British resolve to continue fighting would crumble?
 
The main reason they were not used in WW2 is practical - they inflict no more casualties than conventional ordnance. This should be fairly obvious - a shell hits you, you die, gas lands and you just put a mask on.

But this terrain denial effect can be fairly useful in a number of circumstances. While not important when used against moving troops, use of persistent chemical weapons against field-fortified artillery positions, airfields, cities etc. fixed or semi-fixed sites just after use of normal exploding weapons could give more effect... How about Battle of Britain with strikes against airfields also deploying persistent chemicals?
 
But this terrain denial effect can be fairly useful in a number of circumstances. While not important when used against moving troops, use of persistent chemical weapons against field-fortified artillery positions, airfields, cities etc. fixed or semi-fixed sites just after use of normal exploding weapons could give more effect... How about Battle of Britain with strikes against airfields also deploying persistent chemicals?

I see your thinking, but how persistent are we talking? Airfields tend to be quite windswept places.

You would also need to deliver quite a lot of ordnance, and get it there,which requires air superiority in the first place to do well.

Useful but not a dealbreaker surely?
 
He probably would of demanded some useless terror weapon later in the war or more immediatly like gas deployed by V1 or something else. I doubt little difference would be made although there is potential.
 
Gents,

There's one very important, very nasty, and very depressing fact to keep in mind during this discussion about a WW2 chemical exchange; Nazi Germany had nerve agents and the Allies were completely oblivious to the fact.

Germany developed nerve agents like sarin and tabun before WW2 and produced kilotons of them during the war. IIRC, "weaponized" nerve agents were available by early 1942.

Not only were the Allies completely unaware of Germany's nerve agent research and production projects, they were also completely unaware of the possibility of nerve agents. This means that, unlike with other chemical agents, there is no proper masks, no protective clothing, no atropine injectors, and no real defenses against a weapon which is not even suspected to exist.

The response to German troops being gassed outside Dunkirk may not be something as "simple" as gas shells fired into the evacuation zone in return. Instead, Germany's ultimate response may be the nerve gas bombings of military bases and/or cities.

IIRC again, Germany believed the Western Allies, at least, had developed nerve agents too. The censoring of British and US chemical trade journals further convinced Germany of this, but the articles censored had to do with insecticide and/or pesticide research not nerve agents.


Bill
 
Top