Massive use of chemical warfare by Nazis

Non-nuclear weaponry offers several avenues for military applications; each has it's pros and cons.

First, radiological or 'dirty' bombs. Somewhat feared nowadays, in the 1940's with radiation much less well understood, they would be seen as little more than an exotic explosive device. Military utility is essentially nil, morale effect likewise.

Second, biological organisms used as a weapon. The balancing act with a bacterium or virus as a weapon is a difficult one; make it too infectious and it threatens you as much as your foe, just delayed by a few weeks. Not infectious enough, and you have to distribute ridiculous quantities of it.
Anthrax meets the latter criterion. Equally, distribution is a problem no matter what quantity you are using - as any microbiologist will attest, do your best to kill the wee beasties and they'll stubbornly stay alive, but if you do your best to move them around without killing them they'll perversely die on you.
Personally I am not of the opinion that biological weapons were an effective weapon in WW2. It was sufficiently plausible to be a useful threat, a decent sized stick to wave, but as it was once said of the Soviet Union's anthrax stocks "They've got enough piled up to kill the whole world, and if they try to use it all it won't get more than West Berlin."

Thirdly, bio-toxins, such as Botulinum or Ricin. These are capable of killing in minuscule doses, but again the problem of distribution occurs. Unlike chemical weapons, the toxins are complex protein chains. As such, temperatures much above 40 degrees C will have a good chance of de-naturing them and making them useless. So, the use of toxins is akin to traditional chemical weapons, but more susceptible to heat.

Chemical weapons; while nerve agents are very nasty and can kill by absorption through the skin, the gas stocks left over from WW1 could be defended against by a respirator, such as those issued to civilians in the UK in the early stages of the war. Easiest distribution of these is by artillery, bombing or (wind dependent, this) spraying.

While all these weapons are to a greater or lesser degree horrifying, the fact is that with a 1940's level of technology chemical gases are the most effective, with Sarin, Tabun et al topping the list. The advantages of bio-toxins and other biological weaponry are out-weighed by the difficulties of distributing them effectively and limited production capacity; as well as, of course, the problem with bacteria/viruses of a substantial risk existing of their coming back to bite you.

Just my 2p-worth.
 
Well, the point is, Hitler traumatically expirienced chemical weapons in WWI, and was hence reluctant to use them in WWII. So, ironically, the best way I see to get Nazi Germany to extensively use chemical weapons in WWII is to get rid of Hitler. Imagine the assassination plot by Stauffenberg suceeds, however, the Allies refuse to make a conditional peace with Nazi Germany and insist on an unconditional surrender, forcing the new regime to fight on. They become desperate and deploy chemical weapons...
I actually don't like that explanation. Hitler happily used gas on the Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, etc. If he used it on untermensch that included the Russians in the camps, it wouldn't explain why it was never used on the Eastern Front.

So, I'm pretty sure that he feared retaliation from the Allies.
 
I actually don't like that explanation. Hitler happily used gas on the Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, etc. If he used it on untermensch that included the Russians in the camps, it wouldn't explain why it was never used on the Eastern Front.

So, I'm pretty sure that he feared retaliation from the Allies.

What do you mean with "you don't like it"? That's not an answer.

The evidence is there:
- The usage of the gas Zyklon B in the death camps was a very different beast from combat-oriented chemical weapons (as a combat-oriented weapon, Zyklon B was rather unsuitable in fact). Also, bear in mind that officially (ie, to the public), the genocide didn't even take place.

- The Nazis incorrectly assumed that the Allies were aware of nerve gas agents such as sarin and tabun. In contrast to the weapons of WWI, sarin and tabun are drastically more dangerous. Therefore, they feared, should they use chemical weapons, the Allies would retaliate in kind.

- Unlike Britain for example, the Nazis didn't attempt any real measures to protect the civilian population from chemical weapons. If the Allies would have attacked, the German civilian population would have suffered massive casualties (which in turn, of course, opens the possibility of a 'quick and dirty' Allied victory - ie the Allies decide the first use of chemical weapons against German cities to speed up the war).

- If Hitler didn't have personal inhibitions against chemical weapons used on the front, I'm sure that he would have ordered it.
 
Incognitia and the Emperor have underlined the point I was attempting to make - the unpredictability of disease-based weapons (as against biotoxins) makes them a difficult war-fighting weapon. There is always a risk that the other side will take the step of using cultures of the same weapon against the initial user. Chemicals and biotoxins are predictable and have a well-defined lethality and injury concentration that determines the area of effect.
 

Markus

Banned
1. The last person on earth who cared about German suffering at the end of the war was in fact Adolf Hitler. He stated it was ok if the German people went down with him.

2. CWs don´t just don´t work! At least not militarily. In WW1 Germany used them first and had the best CW for at least a year but the Entente had protective gear and CW too, so neither side had any advantage. They only work if one side lacks the means to protect its troops and retaliate, hence they were only used against Ethiopia and China.

3. At Normandy the US invasion forces had chemical protection gear. The uniforms were impregnated to make them gas proof.
 
Top