WI Hitler had opted for Biological Warfare

Suppose Adolf had made peace with his WWI experiences and turned his military development to Chemical-Biological Weapon development. And say those Nazi scientists found a way to weaponize a variant of the 1918 Influenza virus (H1N1). On its own, that flu wiped out nearly 5% of the worlds population and crippled millions more.

What could have been the possible outcome?


Andrew
 
I don't think Hitler can just be handwaved into doing it. Far be it from me to 'give the man some credit' or anything like that, but his own bonkers views relied on the survival of the master race - and flu doesn't discriminate. Even if he got over being gassed, the risk of unleashing a black plague on his white Europe would be too great.
 
Possibly, but remember Europe in general and Germany in particular were ahead of the game in the use of vaccinations. And German doctors were the first to note (followed shortly by the Brits) a connection between soldiers that contacted the first weaker strain of the influenza and those that were immune during the stronger strain in 1918.

Chemical warfare doesn't discrimnate either. But in either case, a technological advantage is useful. Hitler's bias against chemical weapons, after the gas attacks of WWI is fully understandable. But in supposition, if one were to consider the desperation of the German war machine by say late 1942 to early 1943, and coupled with his ability to deliver a payload of virus I think poses an interesting question as to what if it had been used.

Another interesting conversation could be what if such a virus had been developed and Nazi scientists failed to keep it contained, whether or not it was going to be use in combat.

Andrew
 

Deleted member 1487

Suppose Adolf had made peace with his WWI experiences and turned his military development to Chemical-Biological Weapon development. And say those Nazi scientists found a way to weaponize a variant of the 1918 Influenza virus (H1N1). On its own, that flu wiped out nearly 5% of the worlds population and crippled millions more.

What could have been the possible outcome?


Andrew

Depends how and where it is used. The USSR had IIRC the world's largest and most advanced program at the time, so due to MAD I doubt that Hitler would use it there, as the Germans were well aware of and scared of the Soviet program. The British would be the prime target in 1940-41, as they had limit means to retaliate at the time (weak BC and less developed BW program...Operation Vegetation wasn't viable until 1943-4 IIIRC) AND they could be isolated from the continent once the disease spread.
But then Hitler wanted accomodation with Britain, not all out war. If we wanted to wipe out the Brits, he could have done so with minimal risk of successful retaliation during the Blitz in 1940-41 with existing chemical weapon stocks (German mustard gas developments would have made London uninhabitable in 1940 if used); but again Hitler was driven by MAD, so refrained IOTL.

Also Germany specifically didn't have a Bio-weapons program IOTL because of Hitler's disgust with the idea, echoed by the Prussian generals, so it would take a mighty change for Germany to get in on bio-weapons; it only did so belated IOTL as a deterrent and was behind everyone else, even the US.
 
Depends how and where it is used. The USSR had IIRC the world's largest and most advanced program at the time, so due to MAD I doubt that Hitler would use it there, as the Germans were well aware of and scared of the Soviet program. The British would be the prime target in 1940-41, as they had limit means to retaliate at the time (weak BC and less developed BW program...Operation Vegetation wasn't viable until 1943-4 IIIRC) AND they could be isolated from the continent once the disease spread.
But then Hitler wanted accomodation with Britain, not all out war. If we wanted to wipe out the Brits, he could have done so with minimal risk of successful retaliation during the Blitz in 1940-41 with existing chemical weapon stocks (German mustard gas developments would have made London uninhabitable in 1940 if used); but again Hitler was driven by MAD, so refrained IOTL.

Also Germany specifically didn't have a Bio-weapons program IOTL because of Hitler's disgust with the idea, echoed by the Prussian generals, so it would take a mighty change for Germany to get in on bio-weapons; it only did so belated IOTL as a deterrent and was behind everyone else, even the US.


I do remember that Stalin had amassed quite a stockpile of chemical weapons, as did the US, following WWI. As far as whether or not the Reich wanted to wipe out the brits or not has been a topic of some debate over the years. Given Hitler's psychological profile, and his megalomania, only unconditional surrender would have been satisfactory.

In the beginning of the Reich, there was a ranking SS medical officer that had written a paper on the use of disease as a weapon. As I recall, he did use the mathematical models of the day to show its effect on England. I can't recall the name, Clauberg comes to mind , but I think he was mostly involved in sterilization and euthanasia.

The general disdain for CBW, and not just in Germany, kept much of it off the battlefield. But as Japan was using at least CW effectively in China and other parts of Asia, the allies maintained a stockpile, and as I recall conducted experiments in Australia and NZ on civilians. Germany and Italy failed to get onto the CBW bandwagon until late and only after sheer deperation set in.

Which brings about a more interesting question, at least in my mind. What would it have taken to change Hitler's mind and look towards Biological warfare?

Andrew
 
Just put on your tin foil cap and read the outrageous conspiracy stories about the origins of Lyme Disease - it is one of the funnies Nazi biowar ATLs out there :D
 
Italy failed to get onto the CBW bandwagon until late and only after sheer deperation set in.

Uh, Italy used chemical agents on a pretty decent scale in Ethiopia.

The constant of the actual use of chemical agents in war has always been one since WWI: use them against those who can't retaliate in kind. The notion of Germans using gases on London is not practicable for that simple reason.
 
There is also this little gem:

On orders from Himmler and Blome, the Deputy Reich Health Leader and head of the German biological warfare program, Erich Traub worked on weaponizing foot-and-mouth disease virus, which has been reported to have been dispersed by aircraft onto cattle and reindeer in Russia. In 1944, Blome sent Traub to pick up a strain of Rinderpest virus in Turkey; upon his return, this strain proved inactive (nonvirulent) and therefore plans for a Rinderpest product were shelved.

This type of bio-warfare is probably the most realistic one.
 
What could have been the possible outcome?

And I looked, and behold a pale horse, and his name that sat on him was Death, and hell followed with him

anthrax.jpg
 
The technology for biowar in WW2 was limited. Yes you could use massive amounts of anthrax, or you could use plague and some other diseases in special circumstances (see unit 731) such as seeding overcrowded and unsanitary Chinese cities, but targeted bioweapons as can be used today and of course genetically modified/designed diseases were not doable. Vaccines for potentially useful diseases like anthrax and plague were either not available or not especially effective, and antibiotics were very limited (sulfa drugs and a SMALL amount of penicillin) - of course those don't work against viral disease.

In order for a bioweapon to be effective it needs to have several characteristics - not all on this list but most: hardy so it remains effective for a time after dispersal, highly infective, reasonably rapid onset, significant morbidity and mortality. The problem is, of course, making sure your livestock/population/troops are protected against this nasty disease. In the context of vaccine development and effectiveness and antibiotic availability in WW2 this means the potential for safe and effective use of bioweapons is quite limited - and retaliation will be nasty.
 
The problem is, of course, making sure your livestock/population/troops are protected against this nasty disease.

This is the point where one usually mentions that the armies more heavily relying on draught horses (Germans, late in the war) were more vulnerable to B weapons targeted at livestock. An anthrax exchange would be quite a nutritional problem for Britain, a big hindrance for the Soviet Union, and a killer for Germany and the German army.
 
Top