if only ussr and germany fight are wmd's immediately on the table?

This question:

For whatever reason, ww2 emerges as a conflict only between the germans and the ussr; does the lack of threat from british weapons lead to the germans employing wmd's
 
This question:

For whatever reason, ww2 emerges as a conflict only between the germans and the ussr; does the lack of threat from british weapons lead to the germans employing wmd's

In the 1920s and early 1930s chemical weapons were an integral and major part of the Soviet military doctrine. The Red Army ran A LOT more chem attack drills than the Wehrmacht. Most probably the German chem weapons would be a generation or two ahead of the Soviet ones, but the Soviets were quite capable of dishing out a lot, and - in case "first generation" weapons (not nerve agents) would be used, the Soviets might well be much better prepared than the Germans would have thought.

This said, British weapons didn't play any significant role in German decisions regarding the Eastern Front. It was (quite correctly) assumed that the British stance will not change if the Wehrmacht would add a few dozens of mustard gas shells to an artillery barrage somewhere 2000 km further east.

And regarding chem weapon use on civilians, mass murder is mass murder, regardless whether by gas, bullets or by working people to death. Britain did not specifically react to it IOTL and would not ITTL.

Finally, by 1940-41, British ability to retaliate to chemical attacks would have been very limited. It's not 1944-45. So, British threat of anthrax or lewisite didn't play any role in the decision of Wehrmacht NOT to employ chemical weapons. Hitler's front experience, probable level of preparedness of the Soviets, and - most probably - German reliance on (gas-vulnerable) horse logistics were the deciding factors.
 
If Hitler is in charge of Germany, unless something very severe happened, Germany wouldn't use poison-gas. Hitler had been on the receiving end during WWI and wasn't a fan *at all.*
 
If they were somehow assured that the British, French and US would stay neutral I could see the Nazis using Tabun when the tide turns. They have a chemical monopoly after all.
 
If they were somehow assured that the British, French and US would stay neutral I could see the Nazis using Tabun when the tide turns. They have a chemical monopoly after all.

I suggested that in another thread I had created. Deploying Tabun as an area denial weapon.
 
As I said in another thread....

It is all about the size of the theatre....

Look, chemicals just aren't all that useful as area denial weapons in a theatre as big as the Eastern Front. Yes, there are a few choke points here and there, but for the most part, you don't get continuous lines of resistance to any significant degree, and anything you contaminate (and by the way, Tabun - while significantly deadlier - isn't a particularly superior area denial weapon in terms of persistence to thinks like mustard gas) will be eaily routed around. As a secondary point, both sides have very little (any?) resistance to using slave labor for cleanup/decontamination work, not to mention basic recon operations, which means that the chemicals you do use are going to be cleared up fairly quickly.

Chemicals made some sense on the Western Front because of the compact nature of the front and the very, very high troop densities. Neither of these are present on the Eastern front to any significant degree. The Germans will have marginally better chemicals, the Soviets will have better delivery systems and substantially better industrial and logistical infrastructures to deliver the weapons. With this in mind, I rather doubt that the Germans are going to see this as much of an advantage for them, and the Soviets are simply not going to need them.
 
Top