Nazi WMD

mowque

Banned
Allies would have used more on him....that simple. Although, he did use it on the Jews....
 
Allies would have used more on him....that simple. Although, he did use it on the Jews....

No, he used cyanide gas in the chambers. The nerve gas was a clear military edge the Germans had. Not a major one, of course - the stuff is nightmarish to handle and the slightest mistake can kill, and it's not *that* superior to phosgene or plain old mustard gas, which the Allies had.

If he had used it - bad things. The Allies had air superiority over Germsany. Very bad things.
 
IRL, Nazi Germany developed WMD such as nerve gas.

So for some reason, he didnt use the WMD at his disposal.

But if he did, what would the war look like?
 
What if Hitler had used the Nerve Gas at his disposal?

the Third Reich had alot diverent Nerve Gas, like they invented Zyklon-B and Sarin !

Hitler refused the use of Nerve Gas on Battlefield, because he was victim of Gas attack during WWI
that contradictory to gas chambers in KZ,

some Historians believe that Hitler, although commands the extermination of the Jews,
he refuse to know wat happen to them.

so the Nazi used Nerve Gas on Citys or Battlefield in 1944 ?

The Allies will aswer also with Nerve Gas or worse

England bomb the Third Reich with Bioweapon (antracs)
USA drop the Atombomb on Berlin
 
the Third Reich had alot diverent Nerve Gas, like they invented Zyklon-B and Sarin !

Zyklon B was not a nerve gas, it was absolutely non-military stuff. Only good for murdering defenseless people in prepared enclosed rooms.

Hitler refused the use of Nerve Gas on Battlefield, because he was victim of Gas attack during WWI
that contradictory to gas chambers in KZ,

More probably because he didn´t know how big the nerve gas stores of the allies were (they were small)

so the Nazi used Nerve Gas on Citys or Battlefield in 1944 ?

The Allies will aswer also with Nerve Gas or worse

They would answer with slightly less effective but much cheaper stuff - lewisite, mustard gas, phosgene etc. which were available in LARGE amounts.

England bomb the Third Reich with Bioweapon (antracs)
USA drop the Atombomb on Berlin

Anthrax is militarily useless - it´s only useful for terrorizing the population (putting it into water supply etc.)

If the Americans had a nuclear bomb at the time they would have used it anyway. And with the limited military effect of chemical weapons the war wouldn´t take any longer than OTL. There might be a few additional accusations in Nuremberg, and a few more people would hang - that´s all the difference.
 
It does say just "WMD", I think a more interesting discussion is the possible Nazi development of the atomic bomb, poisonous gases and such wouldn't have changed the war drastically enough.
 
Zyklon B was not a nerve gas, it was absolutely non-military stuff. Only good for murdering defenseless people in prepared enclosed rooms.

It was also used to kill lice if you use it in small quantitys. So i dont know, it keeps some grunt solder happy?

Anyways same as always, it end up worse for Germany.
 
It does say just "WMD", I think a more interesting discussion is the possible Nazi development of the atomic bomb, poisonous gases and such wouldn't have changed the war drastically enough.

IDK.

Part of the problem is that chemical weapons would increase the effect of bombing civilians and logistical stresses. I see the deployment of chemical weapons playing lightly in favor of the allies in total:

Germany's initial use of Chemical Weapons might really help them on the Eastern Front--but even if Germany managed to win at Stalingrad as a result and spare a third of a million men, its logistical stresses have intensified and the Red Army can be counted upon to respond. Indeed, the Red Army might face problems of having little gear to protect against chemical strikes. But the Wehrmacht and its conscripted Ostruppen are not going to be much better prepared.

In the West, the USA is going to avoid any chemical strikes entirely, and while the UK might suffer some nasty attacks, its going to be Germany itself that faces the worst abuses. The USA can make the weapons but never face the dangers of the attacks. The UK might face a problem with V2s and nerve gas, but unless this is happening in 1940 its really Germany getting screwed.

Can Germany really spend the extra resources building chemical weapons and protecting themselves from their effects? Sure, but somethings got to give. Now, it would be nice if Germany would scrap silly things like 80 ton tanks, but this is Nazi Germany and its pretty obvious that optimal economic decisions will not be made.

We can expect more losses on the Eastern Front and the civilian death tolls, particularly that of Germans and to a lesser degree Soviets and Italians.

And German nukes are not appearing before 1960 or someone else's nuclear program, unless major changes are made to Nazi Germany's government.
 
IDK.

Part of the problem is that chemical weapons would increase the effect of bombing civilians and logistical stresses. I see the deployment of chemical weapons playing lightly in favor of the allies in total:

No, not lightly. Heavily.

Germany's initial use of Chemical Weapons might really help them on the Eastern Front--but even if Germany managed to win at Stalingrad as a result and spare a third of a million men, its logistical stresses have intensified and the Red Army can be counted upon to respond. Indeed, the Red Army might face problems of having little gear to protect against chemical strikes. But the Wehrmacht and its conscripted Ostruppen are not going to be much better prepared.

Not to mention that horses will die like flies, which is a big problem for the Soviets and the Germans, but not for the Western armies.
 
And German nukes are not appearing before 1960 or someone else's nuclear program, unless major changes are made to Nazi Germany's government.
Wow, I didn't know it was that bad, the way some people talked about theoretical Axis nuclear potential I thought it'd be like, 1950 at latest.
 
Wow, I didn't know it was that bad, the way some people talked about theoretical Axis nuclear potential I thought it'd be like, 1950 at latest.

There's even a German historian who maintains the Third Reich actually built a crude uranium device. He's wrong, though. The problem is not the theory - Germany had more than enough graduates they could throw at the idea even after the Nazi stupidification programme. Building a nuke is a major exercise in industrial production, though, and it takes vast amounts of energy, raw materials, manpower and lots of experimentation. All of this is a problem for Germany, especially when you consider that they didn't know what they would get and couldn't be sure anything viable would come of it.
 
Top