If Germany used chemical/bio weapons from the beginning of WW2

Would the war in Europe have played out particularly differently if, maintaining its same strategy, Germany had utilised any chemical or biological weapons in its inventory and had dedicated resources to mass producing them?
 
If Hitler wasn't going to unleash biological and chemical weapons on the front where he believed he was fighting racial inferiors fit mainly for death or subjugation you have to have someone other then Hitler running the show or say someone else starts it first.

The generals by in large weren't enamored with the idea of going bio-chem with some of them being absolutely against the idea.

Frankly, if they didn't use chemical weapons to hold back the Red Army in 1945 when Hitler believed he had nothing left to lose I don't see it happening at least coming from Germany first under him at the start.

Now under a Himmler ruled Germany then perhaps he starts to let it fly on the Eastern front.
 
Given the prevailing westerly winds over Northern Europe, chemical weapons would be more valuable on the Eastern Front.
Given the limited affect of chemical weapons during WW1, Germany would need to develop more effective delivery methods.
May I suggest chemical landlines for defense?
Chemical land mines would discourage conquerors from inhabiting freshly-captured trenches and bunkers.
 
There are a number of reasons for Germany not to use chemical weapons:

1. They feared Allied retaliation. Everyone remembered how awful chemical warfare in WWI was, and nobody wanted a repeat of that.

2. Hitler despised chemical weapons, something that emerged from his experiences in the trenches in WWI.

3. They couldn't make a gas mask that fit horses. The Heer's logistics were largely based on horses, and without a gas mask to fit them horses would be unable to go through areas that had recently been gassed. This means that after gassing an area the Germans would have to halt their advance, giving their enemies time to regroup and ruining the blitzkrieg strategy (which relied on fast-moving armies).

Biological weapons would be even worse, because there's no way to control their spread. Given how small Europe is there's a high chance that any plague Germany unleashes on the Allies is going to come back and infect Germans.
 
Although I agree heartily with what others have said, I would point to Heydrich as your best bet for the ruthless enough leader to employ anything in the arsenal to win. The Wehrmacht possessed nerve agents unlike Allied developments but assumed parity so had little incentive to employ them. And I would say the two most opportune targets were either the Normandy beachheads or as part of large scale withdraws in the East to inflict mass casualties to either break contact or to "scorch earth". The biggest issue is that when these scenarios exist the Allies enjoy the advantages of strategic bombardment and the British most likely would have employed Anthrax, potentially worse than even the linger effects of nuclear warfare as envisioned then. A more dystopic Third Reich with a Waffen-SS army and Heyrich at the helm and it is more possible; you decide if it is more likely.
 
Chemical weapons aren't terribly useful on troops, as providing protection is possible. However, draft animals (horses mostly) aren't going to be protected, and Germany used far more of them than Britain (especially). It would be a counterproductive move for them. (Not that that stopped them in other instances.)

Basically, it would do more damage to the German army than any of their opponents.
 
Change Hitler's military history slightly. The main reason that he didn't use those types of weapons was literally due to his experience in WW1, in particular when he was blinded.

I am curious how this would affect his personality and how he lead the country. It obviously had a big effect on his adult life. It might be that he decides not to use it for tactical reasons.

The effectiveness would depend on where they used it and what delivery systems they devised. In WW1 they seemed more an annoyance than a winning strategy. With their massed armies and poor logistics the Soviets would be a good choice.
 

nbcman

Donor
Change Hitler's military history slightly. The main reason that he didn't use those types of weapons was literally due to his experience in WW1, in particular when he was blinded.

I am curious how this would affect his personality and how he lead the country. It obviously had a big effect on his adult life. It might be that he decides not to use it for tactical reasons.

The effectiveness would depend on where they used it and what delivery systems they devised. In WW1 they seemed more an annoyance than a winning strategy. With their massed armies and poor logistics the Soviets would be a good choice.

Hitler did not have any 'Poison Gas PTSD' or any qualms about using poison gas but he was a realist on the effects and that it would impact German forces far greater than the more motorized Western Allied forces.

For an additional discussion and links to other threads on Nazi poison gas usage, see:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/nazi-gas-in-ww2.361024/
 

Deleted member 1487

I think the only way you'd see gas being used was if Barbarossa was launched after Britain had been driven out of the war. Say with a peace deal in 1940 after the Fall of France and Germany then invaded the USSR in 1941 I could very easily see them using gas to win the war in the East. It would be quite useful given their dominance over much of the situation during the invasion. In the first push on Sevastopol in 1941 gas would have been decisive, as would the pushes on Leningrad in August-September. Mustard gas and even the limited amounts of early nerve agents like Tabun would have liquidated the pockets they formed more quickly than IOTL and would have made the bombing raids on Moscow and other cities far more effective. Of course it would have made Germany even more of an international pariah and war criminal state. But the Soviets would have been hard pressed to respond effectively but for a few instances like the fighting around Smolensk in July-September.
 
To give you some sort of idea as to the prevailing attitudes during the war - certainly in the West - I read an account recently where the British were using White Phosphorus shells to mark the fall of shot in Normandy (because they were very visible to observers) - the German commanders in that sector sent a letter of protest at the use of such weapons and the British became concerned that the use of such rounds could be perceived as use of Chemical weapons and immediately withdrew them from use.

They used HE shells instead.

That being said in this here neck of the woods on the south coast of Britain there was apparently no qualms about first use of Chemical weapons had a certain unmentionable sea mammal staggered ashore - it would have been liberally dosed with Mustard gas and other chemicals.
 
There were gas masks available for horses, they certainly were available during WW1 and also during WW2. How effective they were and what impact they had on the animals ability as draft animals I have no idea.

http://www.teachinghistory100.org/objects/about_the_object/gas_mask_for_a_horse

The Germans were very concerned about the possibility of Soviet use of nerve agents, in particular as a lot of the scientific work carried out on organophosphates based insecticides by Russian scientists. They never conceived the Russians could have missed such an obvious line of development.
 

nbcman

Donor
There were gas masks available for horses, they certainly were available during WW1 and also during WW2. How effective they were and what impact they had on the animals ability as draft animals I have no idea.

http://www.teachinghistory100.org/objects/about_the_object/gas_mask_for_a_horse

The Germans were very concerned about the possibility of Soviet use of nerve agents, in particular as a lot of the scientific work carried out on organophosphates based insecticides by Russian scientists. They never conceived the Russians could have missed such an obvious line of development.

Even if the gas mask worked well enough on a horse due to the difficulty in sealing it over fur, the mask didn't protect the horses body from contact agents such as blister and nerve agents. It would probably protect a horse against choking agents such as chlorine but the WW2 combatants had stockpiles of blister agents, not choking agents.
 
There is also the fact that Germany had a great military incentive to not use chemical weapons: even if it is the attacker firing off gas, said attacker then has to move through the gas clouds and they have to do so even more slowly and cautiously then they might have otherwise. This slows down the tempo of operations and, for the Germans in World War 2, sustaining high operational tempos was positively vital in keeping their enemies off balance. Ultimately, chemical weapons use benefits the defender, not the attacker.

In fact, the Soviets in 1941 briefly debated using chemical weapons precisely because of the aforementioned means in which it could slow the Germans down. They decided the political costs of being the first to use chemical weapons outweighed whatever military gains it would bring them.
 

Deleted member 1487

There is also the fact that Germany had a great military incentive to not use chemical weapons: even if it is the attacker firing off gas, said attacker then has to move through the gas clouds and they have to do so even more slowly and cautiously then they might have otherwise. This slows down the tempo of operations and, for the Germans in World War 2, sustaining high operational tempos was positively vital in keeping their enemies off balance. Ultimately, chemical weapons use benefits the defender, not the attacker.

In fact, the Soviets in 1941 briefly debated using chemical weapons precisely because of the aforementioned means in which it could slow the Germans down. They decided the political costs of being the first to use chemical weapons outweighed whatever military gains it would bring them.
Depends on the agent. Both sides used chemical weapons on the attack in WW1 just fine. Nerve agents generally quickly disperse, especially the early ones like Tabun and Sarin, which were ideal for the offensive, because they are fast acting and disperse quickly. Of course in specific situations like cauldron battles and the German defensive fighting around Smolensk from July-September persistent agents like the viscus Mustard Gas compound they invented in the 1930s would be highly valuable especially against the Soviets who had very few working gas masks. The Soviets specifically would suffer extreme casualties from even WW1 chemical weapons in 1941 due to their lack of quality protective gear.
 
Both sides used chemical weapons on the attack in WW1 just fine.

Because warfare in WW1 was slow-moving and had low operational tempos to begin with. Something the Germans in World War 2 can not afford.

Nerve agents generally quickly disperse, especially the early ones like Tabun and Sarin, which were ideal for the offensive, because they are fast acting and disperse quickly.

Nerve agents only quickly disperse relative to WW1 gases. Depending on the weather conditions and terrain, nerve gases can linger for days and even weeks. And this is before we factor in Soviet retaliation, which would invariably involve more viscous mustard and phosgene gas. This unpredictably only enhances the aforementioned problem in tempo: without any way to be entirely certain, the Germans would have to assume the worse and move more slowly in all cases they use gas regardless.

The Soviets specifically would suffer extreme casualties from even WW1 chemical weapons in 1941 due to their lack of quality protective gear.

Soviet forces were actually exceedingly well equipped for WW1 style chemical warfare, as their interwar doctrine had envisaged their usage en-masse. The problem really was that such equipment was the first thing Soviet soldiers would abandon while on the retreat. The Germans recorded capturing huge quantities of Soviet protective gear which they found just left on the ground in the trail of the retreating Red Army. Although against nerve agents they would have been about as useful as anybody else's protective gear.
 

Deleted member 1487

Because warfare in WW1 was slow-moving and had low operational tempos to begin with. Something the Germans in World War 2 can not afford.
There are plenty of images of WW1 infantry advancing through clouds of their own gas to assault a position. Its not like that is that big of a problem with WW1 gas that everyone, but the Germans had. And the WW2 tempo isn't so fast as to prevent dispersal before attacks go in, especially of 1941 vintage nerve agents.

Nerve agents only quickly disperse relative to WW1 gases. Depending on the weather conditions and terrain, nerve gases can linger for days and even weeks. And this is before we factor in Soviet retaliation, which would invariably involve more viscous mustard and phosgene gas. This unpredictably only enhances the aforementioned problem in tempo: without any way to be entirely certain, the Germans would have to assume the worse and move more slowly in all cases they use gas regardless.
30 minutes is too long? I'm talking Tabun. VX and Soman are much more persistent than Sarin and Tabun. The Germans have much more ability to defend against Mustard and Phosgene gases due to their protective gear; the Soviets on the other hand lacked that gear and during Barbarossa had some issues getting supplies forward without German aerial and artillery interdiction in many cases. Not saying that the Soviets wouldn't be able to douse certain areas with chemical agents, like during the Smolensk offensives, but chemical weapons would hurt them worse than the Germans in 1941, especially as it would mean Leningrad would fall early and cauldrons would be liquidated more quickly with less losses and fortified positions the Soviets had would fall with far less effort.

Soviet forces were actually exceedingly well equipped for WW1 style chemical warfare, as their interwar doctrine had envisaged their usage en-masse. The problem really was that such equipment was the first thing Soviet soldiers would abandon while on the retreat. The Germans recorded capturing huge quantities of Soviet protective gear which they found just left on the ground in the trail of the retreating Red Army. Although against nerve agents they would have been about as useful as anybody else's protective gear.
The might have had things in depots, but they couldn't get that to their troops and once the original depots were overrun they didn't even have enough rifles to go around, let alone gas masks. Plus their masks didn't work against Tabun or Sarin. So Soviet losses in protective gear would mean they'd be exceedingly vulnerable by July.
 
There are plenty of images of WW1 infantry advancing through clouds of their own gas to assault a position.

And said assaults were slow moving, taking copious amounts of time. This allowed the opposition all the time in the world to reinforce and mount counterattacks. Thus the assaulting force took exceedingly heavy casualties, and seized very little territory. The only reason Gas didn't slow assaults down much in WW1 is because by the time it showed up, assaults in WW1 had already long been reduced to a crawl.

And the WW2 tempo isn't so fast as to prevent dispersal before attacks go in, especially of 1941 vintage nerve agents.

Yes it is. 1941 nerve agents are no more suitable to maneuver warfare then 1915 ones.

30 minutes is too long? I'm talking Tabun.

It doesn't matter what specific agent you are talking about. No known chemical weapon is reliable enough that you can go "Oh, thirty minutes has passed, it's okay now" with adequate enough reliability for even the likes of military men. A unexpected shift in the wind may blow the cloud into precisely the wrong positions or a spike in humidity causes it to hang around for far longer then it might otherwise. Their just too fickle to be reliable close-support weapons in a fast-moving campaign.

Not saying that the Soviets wouldn't be able to douse certain areas with chemical agents, like during the Smolensk offensives, but chemical weapons would hurt them worse than the Germans in 1941

In the long run, it would certainly hurt the Germans far more. Leningrad wouldn't fall, since the Germans now have to deal with gas clouds on top of everything else. The Germans would still have to enter the cauldrons to deal with stragglers. The Soviets would be free to lay down chemical weapons in front of their positions in a similar manner as minefields (something chemical weapons are exceedingly good at) and the Anglo-Americans could now be able to bombard German cities with chemical agents, allowing their 1942-43 strategic raids to actually be effective.

The might have had things in depots, but they couldn't get that to their troops and once the original depots were overrun they didn't even have enough rifles to go around, let alone gas masks.

The sheer quantity of thrown-away gas masks the Germans found suggests otherwise. When I said on the ground, I was being quite literal. And the idea the Soviets didn't have enough rifles to go around is a myth: rifles are one of the pieces of equipment the Soviets generally never had a shortage of. The big shortages were with the heavier weapons which make up the bulk of an armies firepower.

So Soviet losses in protective gear would mean they'd be exceedingly vulnerable by July.

More like September-October. The forces deployed in July-August were roughly as well equipped as the frontier ones, as their equipment were all pulled from the Soviets own massive stocks.

Plus their masks didn't work against Tabun or Sarin.

Neither do the Germans.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The difficulty with chemical weapons is that, well, they don't offer any advantage against someone who can respond in kind. This is especially true in WW II, where the gloves came all the way off, on all sides. Every combatant had CW agents, no one wanted to be the first to break the taboo, but everyone was cocked and locked if the other side crossed the line.

As I have noted in other threads the Reich was far more vulnerable to CW than the WAllies or the USSR. The Heer was almost entirely dependent on animal drawn supply transport outside of few SS Panzer divisions (even those used some wagon transport), no less than Hermann Goring stated that the Wehrmacht had never been able to develop a usable gas mask for horses, making gas more or less useless for the Heer. Germany was on the wrong side of the strategic bombing balance, will all that implies. Lest someone think that the Allies wouldn't have used gas, I simply point out that Harris was actively trying to kill German civilians throughout the war, the U.S. firebombed Japan on what can be described as a production line scale, burning out 8-10 SQUARE MILES of a Japanese city 3-4 times per week, that doesn't even consider the two nuclear attacks. No holds barred.

Early nerve agents were not the persistent death that some binaries of the Cold War represented. Operationally, after first use and the associated shock value, more persistent agents, especially Sulphur Mustard and Lewisite (Lewisite is an especially nasty agent well suited for use against civilian populations) are much more effective (which is why versions of Mustard remain in inventories of rouge states to this day).
 
Against well equipped and trained troops, chemicals are marginally useful, and then usually in a surprise use. Once everyone is expecting them, their effectiveness is limited. A many have noted, your advancing troops have to go through a contaminated zone, slowly them down and there will always be a few casualties from these (not including horses who are more vulnerable). Nerve agents were not really available until later in the war in any quantities, and the Germans never realized the Allies did not have them. The major perceived use of chemicals in a war today would be to attack rear areas like airfields, depots, transportation hubs and so forth preferably with moderately persistent agents - to deny their use to the enemy but not render them useless to your troops when they get there. Agent selection depending upon when you expect to get to the target.

Using chemicals against the western Allies opens up the Germans to retaliation by folks who have the weapons and can deliver them in quantity. On the eastern front if the Germans had the capability to deliver significant amounts of conventional agents to hubs etc, it might be useful but frontline use gains little and only makes life difficult for yourself.
 
I've never understood the strength of the 'Hitler didn't like gas' argument, between 1939 and 1945 he murdered millions of people with gas. The real reasons are fairly evident and have been mentioned already, gas forces the attacker into a war of attrition which even the most delusional of Nazi's knew they would lose and more importantly it would force them into a game of gas vs counter-measure which they never found an answer to in OTL. Guderian mentions both in Achtung Panzer!, although he devotes fairly little time to gas warfare because, like Hitler would have to be reminded of at least once during the war, he knew it was a dead end.
 
Top