Hitler's WMD

In OTL, Hitler had tonnes of WMD, like Saddam, but for some reason did not use it.

What if he did just before the Battle of Kursk?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
<Gasp>
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
Problem is, the Allies would have a much easier job of delivering chemical weapons into Germany, especially by 1943 when the American and British bombers practically ruled the skies over Germany. The Germans knew that if they used their chemical weapons they could expect a disproportionate response from the Allies.

I guess this is why chemical weapons weren't used in WW2 - both sides were unwilling to risk the terror and destruction of chemical warfare...

EDIT: In the short term, the use of chemical weapons at Kursk could have helped the Germans in their attempted breakthrough, but I personally don't think that the Germans had the means to carry on an offensive war by 1943. The most they could hope for would be a much longer (and more bloody given the guaranteed mutual use of chemical weapons) war of attrition in the East. If the Americans and British started dropping gas on German cities, however, I don't expect Germany would have lasted very long.
 

mowque

Banned
Problem is, the Allies would have a much easier job of delivering chemical weapons into Germany, especially by 1943 when the American and British bombers practically ruled the skies over Germany. The Germans knew that if they used their chemical weapons they could expect a disproportionate response from the Allies.

I guess this is why chemical weapons weren't used in WW2 - both sides were unwilling to risk the terror and destruction of chemical warfare...

This. As always is said in these threads.:)
 
Well, German nerve agents like sarin were definitely more effective than British mustard gas, but I don't know anything at all about chemical weapons in use by the Soviets during the war. Surely, though, if the Germans started using nerve gas then the other belligerents would soon figure out how to make it themselves.

As for the effect on Barbarossa - gas would certainly have sped up the reduction of Soviet strongholds and therefore the Germans would have advanced quicker. On the other hand, the Soviets would also have used their chemical weapons, though not as effectively given the destruction of their airforce...

I'd be more interested in the effect of chemical warfare on the Battle of Britain.
 
1. The Germans only had about a thousand tons of nerve gas. It was a pretty meaningless quantity in the amount that war requires.
2. Can we say "Thousand bomber raids with anthrax"?
3. Gas would slow down the German advance. Decontamination and all of that fun stuff is not conducive to breaking through (unless you're crazy like the Brits and make plans to use 6,000 tons of phosgene, shame the Spring Offensive interrupted that).
4. Mustard on the docks is going to make things a lot harder on the Brits, but then again, you'll be seeing mustard on U-boat construction slips as well.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Hitler had been been gassed in WW1 so he knew how dreadful it was, and the idea of being gassed again was not pleasent to him.
 
Yeah, but he was also gassing the 'undesireables'.

I am pretty sure he could make room for the Soviets too.
 
Top