Something I was musing on the walk into work today.
It is well known the Nazis had a massive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in storage, however they were never used despite the impending collapse of Germany and the Nazi regime.
Now I can understand why Hitler would have been against using them against the Western forces (Britain had its own moderate chemical weapons stock pile which it would have retaliated with, and Hitler was hoping for peace and reconciliation to a degree with the British people after the end of the war).
However, that doesn't explain why he didn't authorise their use against Soviet troops. Especially when the Soviet forces began turning the tide and approaching German soil, it seems inconsistent with what I know of Hitler that he wouldn't have used any weapon at his disposal to repulse the tide of Communism.
Ah, but I hear you scholars says "But Hitler was wounded during WW1 from a chemical attack and thus was against the use of chemical weapons."
This didn't stop him using gas chambers to cleanse those he considered 'undesirables'. Its not a big leap from gassing civilian undesirables to gassing enemy combatants, especially those in the East he considered an 'inferior race'.
Hitler was not a rational man and especially towards the end of the war became more and more unstable. He disagreed with his generals and had them removed or executed when they suggested organised retreats. I believe he ordered the destruction of the Eiffel Tower when it seemed like Paris was about to be liberated, so he wasn't beyond petty acts of revenge.
Given all this, even he didn't use them as part of his main campaign in the East, why didn't Hitler authorise the use of chemical weapons when the Eastern Front began collapsing, or even just as a revenge attack scattered anthrax or something over the Russian/Polish etc. countryside?
It is well known the Nazis had a massive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in storage, however they were never used despite the impending collapse of Germany and the Nazi regime.
Now I can understand why Hitler would have been against using them against the Western forces (Britain had its own moderate chemical weapons stock pile which it would have retaliated with, and Hitler was hoping for peace and reconciliation to a degree with the British people after the end of the war).
However, that doesn't explain why he didn't authorise their use against Soviet troops. Especially when the Soviet forces began turning the tide and approaching German soil, it seems inconsistent with what I know of Hitler that he wouldn't have used any weapon at his disposal to repulse the tide of Communism.
Ah, but I hear you scholars says "But Hitler was wounded during WW1 from a chemical attack and thus was against the use of chemical weapons."
This didn't stop him using gas chambers to cleanse those he considered 'undesirables'. Its not a big leap from gassing civilian undesirables to gassing enemy combatants, especially those in the East he considered an 'inferior race'.
Hitler was not a rational man and especially towards the end of the war became more and more unstable. He disagreed with his generals and had them removed or executed when they suggested organised retreats. I believe he ordered the destruction of the Eiffel Tower when it seemed like Paris was about to be liberated, so he wasn't beyond petty acts of revenge.
Given all this, even he didn't use them as part of his main campaign in the East, why didn't Hitler authorise the use of chemical weapons when the Eastern Front began collapsing, or even just as a revenge attack scattered anthrax or something over the Russian/Polish etc. countryside?