Hitler and chemical weapons

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Hitler and chemical weapons

#1

Post by jesk » 16 Sep 2019, 20:09

Why didn’t he apply it? Whatever the “right” answers of people with normal moral feelings. There is no answer to this question. The black hole of world history. To me more the opinion imposes.

https://operkor.wordpress.com/2011/05/0 ... почему-во/

BLACK HOLE OF WORLD HISTORY. Why didn’t Hitler or Stalin use chemical weapons during the war?

Almost 70 years have passed since June 22, 1941 - the day the Great Patriotic War began and from the day the war ended in Europe, and then in Asia. New facts and details are discovered all the time, but with them even more questions arise. What was it really? One thing is obvious - it was a catastrophe that greatly changed the course of world history and the development of all mankind. Was a war inevitable?

What actually made the peoples of Christian civilization clutch in mortal combat? The war, on the one hand, was brutal and savage, on the other (at least from the point of view of classical military theory) - rather strange. There are no answers, and perhaps there will be no more.

 Here, for example, is the question of chemical weapons. It is known that all the main parties to the conflict possessed chemical weapons. The consequences of using this type of weapon of mass destruction are also known by the example of the First World War. It is known that it was used as a punitive means of mass destruction of people in the concentration camps of the fascist regime.

Another example is the USSR. To suppress the rebellion of the Tambov peasants against forced collectivization, the communist government used chemical warfare agents (BOV). It turns out that both dictatorial regimes had no moral and moral restraining factors.

Why did not Stalin use BOV near Moscow, for example, when the situation was critical? What, did he feel sorry for the German or his soldiers? Everyone knows that he didn’t even count how many died. And the German command, which had real weapons of mass destruction (production in 1941-43 amounted to 180,000 tons of toxic substances annually)?

The Wehrmacht, thanks to German clarity and high-quality tactical superiority, could very effectively use BOV, however, did not use it. Even at the end of the war, when the days of the fascist regime were numbered, the ruling elite of this regime was poisoned personally, but did not use poison against the enemy.

Was there really such fidelity to the Geneva Protocol of 1925 or, as they officially say, Germany was afraid that if she used chemical weapons, then the allies would also use it in response. But who will be afraid when there is no hope of salvation?

Of course, this is not the main reason. Logically it turns out that if Hitler Germany really, to the full power of German industry and German technical power, would massively use chemical weapons, the results of the war, and even more so its results, could be completely different. And who knows what the world order would be like now.

For all the “humanity”, the United States used nuclear weapons, although, by and large, this no longer affected the course of the world war, and nothing. It turns out that a truly democratic government, in a very democratic country, decided to use weapons of mass destruction, and not even against military units, but against cities with a civilian population. On the other hand, the ruling elite of the two most cruel dictatorial regimes on earth did not dare to use weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe they were simply forbidden to do this, so as not to change the course of events planned by someone, and therefore the future. The question is, who could forbid Hitler and Stalin to kill as much as they want, in the name of their manic power? The question is open.

User avatar
Robert Rojas
In memoriam
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002, 05:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.
Contact:

RE: Hitler And Chemical Weapons.

#2

Post by Robert Rojas » 17 Sep 2019, 00:27

Greetings to both citizen Jesk and the community as a whole. Howdy Jesk! Well sir, in reference to your introductory posting of Monday - September 16, 2019 - 10:09am, old yours truly is of the opinion that Adolf Hitler refrained from using Chemical Weapons due to his own traumatic experience with MUSTARD GAS in the Ypres salient in Belgium on October 14, 1918. Do not forget that the all knowing Bohemian Corporal was temporarily blinded by this event. Undoubtedly, the man went through quite a bit of personal retrospection while recuperating from his injuries. Now, as for old Joseph Stalin, I have absolutely no idea what life experiences the man MIGHT have gone through to shape or impact his decision making processes regarding the potential use of Chemical Weapons. Remember, Joseph Stalin was already an accomplished mass murderer before the epoch event of June 22, 1941. Finally, I am more than a bit confused with the trajectory of this creation of yours. Is this truly a WHAT IF scenario OR is this a topic better suited for the philosophers who moralize over on the HOLOCAUST AND TWENTIETH CENTURY WAR CRIMES section of the forum? Just asking. Well, that's my initial two Yankee cents worth on this confusing topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of White Russia.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee


maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#3

Post by maltesefalcon » 17 Sep 2019, 01:26

Hitler may have objected to their use on moral grounds. But he was an amoral person that allowed the use of poison gas to exterminate civilians, so I think other factors are at play.

First of all chemical weapons are not very practical. They depend on just the right atmospheric conditions, which can change at a moments notice. Typically your own troops must also wear protective gear to attack quickly enough to gain the ground formerly occupied by your foe.

WW1 created just the kind of conditions that allowed gas attacks. Fairly static troop positions to allow accurate deployment. Little to no civilian population or infrastructure as it was already flattened by conventional attacks. Most of all surprise. The early attacks caught troops unaware and unequipped, thus spreading terror and abandoned positions. Just as important, at the time of the first attacks, it was a desperate measure in an attempt to break the defensive stalemate.

By WW2 the lines were more fluid and in heavily populated zones. Not only that, the use of tanks and better aircraft sufficiently threatened the concept of static warfare.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#4

Post by Stiltzkin » 17 Sep 2019, 05:02

WW1 created just the kind of conditions that allowed gas attacks. Fairly static troop positions to allow accurate deployment. Little to no civilian population or infrastructure as it was already flattened by conventional attacks. Most of all surprise. The early attacks caught troops unaware and unequipped, thus spreading terror and abandoned positions. Just as important, at the time of the first attacks, it was a desperate measure in an attempt to break the defensive stalemate.

By WW2 the lines were more fluid and in heavily populated zones. Not only that, the use of tanks and better aircraft sufficiently threatened the concept of static warfare.
Good comment, it is far more likely that the core issue lies in its compatibility, volatility and applicability on the battlefields of the 40s. Not to mention that protective gear could even fail at filtering diphenylchloroarsine (Maskenbrecher).
Of course, gas can be effective at suppressing insurgencies in populated areas (see Syria) and has been deployed in the Iran-Iraq conflict, in the 80s. The Italians also utilized chemical weapons (via air drops, sulphur mustard) over Ethiopia in 35-36. One thing that is still somewhat a mysterium is the later phase of WW2: The Wehrmacht was in full retreat and tried to deny their opponents any territorial gains, while pursuing a policy of total annihilation. Ballistic missiles could have been mounted with agents as well. I do not completely foreclose political factors (aside from the personal experiences of the actors who partook in WWI). A rather futile attempt of influencing the public opinion on the world stage? They were perceived as the aggressor and once the full extent of their crimes was known there was no escape. The fear of retaliation and protection of their population to uphold the regime's image? The bombings of major cities killed more people and turned the war into a "dirty war" anyway.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#5

Post by thaddeus_c » 17 Sep 2019, 05:40

thought it had been generally accepted that they were not used by German side due to their extensive use of horses, a retaliation in kind would have left them immobilized?

a secondary reason was that they believed (wrongly) that the Allied side had nerve gases (like Tabun) also? thus the one weapon(s) where they held a significant advantage was not used.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#6

Post by jesk » 17 Sep 2019, 06:06

I read too. Gas masks of that time did not protect against tabun. The ban came personally from Hitler. In Soviet sources it was mentioned that in the spring of 1945 Goebbels proposed the use of gases on the eastern front. But again failure followed. This is another mistake in the strategy of warfare.
Soviet soldiers are very undisciplined. They did not even wear helmets, uncomfortable. Rarely in photographs can see a Red Army man in a helmet. In best case, 30-40% of them would be able to wear gas masks during a German gas attack.

https://thequestion.ru/questions/1409/a ... 067-anchor

Albert Speer wrote a lot about this, before the war, Hitler's personal architect, and during - his minister of armaments (chapter 28 of “Memoirs”)

The meaning is something like this:

In late fall of the 44th, Hitler appointed a commissioner for the production of gas masks, sort of out of fear of chemical attacks on German cities - they began to make up to 2.3 million pieces a month. At the same time, it seemed that the discussion was about the use of chemical weapons by German troops, Hitler had at her disposal gas "tabun", which in theory could not be stopped even by all modern gas masks.

Many supporters of the Führer proposed to use gas, and he himself began to think aloud about the use of gas on the Eastern Front, believing that the Allies would not oppose the suspension of the Soviet offensive in this way. The proposal was not enthusiastic, and on October 11 the German chemical industry suffered in the bombing, and the release of the tabun stopped. However, there was an impossible order of Hitler to ban the cessation of the production of toxic gases.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#7

Post by jesk » 17 Sep 2019, 06:27

thaddeus_c wrote:
17 Sep 2019, 05:40
thought it had been generally accepted that they were not used by German side due to their extensive use of horses, a retaliation in kind would have left them immobilized?
This problem decided. In World War I there were almost no cars, but gas used.

Image
a secondary reason was that they believed (wrongly) that the Allied side had nerve gases (like Tabun) also? thus the one weapon(s) where they held a significant advantage was not used.
I do not think so. Intelligence was to learn about the types of toxic substances at the allies. Without Hitler, they would definitely apply it. The Fuhrer simply adhered to international conventions!

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#8

Post by Stiltzkin » 17 Sep 2019, 09:01

thought it had been generally accepted that they were not used by German side due to their extensive use of horses, a retaliation in kind would have left them immobilized?
Yes but so did the Red Army.
I read too. Gas masks of that time did not protect against tabun. The ban came personally from Hitler. In Soviet sources it was mentioned that in the spring of 1945 Goebbels proposed the use of gases on the eastern front. But again failure followed. This is another mistake in the strategy of warfare.
Soviet soldiers are very undisciplined. They did not even wear helmets, uncomfortable. Rarely in photographs can see a Red Army man in a helmet. In best case, 30-40% of them would be able to wear gas masks during a German gas attack.
The consequence is a delay, the irrecoverable damage is comparatively low, aside from long term effects. Battlefield dispersion also increased from the 20s to 40s.
a secondary reason was that they believed (wrongly) that the Allied side had nerve gases (like Tabun) also? thus the one weapon(s) where they held a significant advantage was not used.
More plausible, but supposedly the chemical industry was aware of its monopole.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#9

Post by jesk » 17 Sep 2019, 10:42

Stiltzkin wrote:
17 Sep 2019, 09:01
Yes but so did the Red Army.
In July 1941, Manstein considered it impossible for the enemy to use chemical weapons, in view of his lack of means of anti-chemical defense. Also visible is Stalin in December. Germany is not that. And the Germans really had a miracle-weapon, against which the enemy is powerless - tabun.

Image

https://archive.org/details/ErichVonMan ... /page/n117
The consequence is a delay, the irrecoverable damage is comparatively low, aside from long term effects. Battlefield dispersion also increased from the 20s to 40s.
At least to destroy the bridgeheads - Magnushevsky, Pulawsky, Sandomierz.
a secondary reason was that they believed (wrongly) that the Allied side had nerve gases (like Tabun) also? thus the one weapon(s) where they held a significant advantage was not used.
More plausible, but supposedly the chemical industry was aware of its monopole.
Political will was needed for application. Goebbels and others had it. But Hitler did not want to.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#10

Post by maltesefalcon » 17 Sep 2019, 12:07

Lets look at the tactical considerations again.

In WW1, gas was used on small sections of a long static front, to suppress enemy infantry and machine guns and to allow one's own infantry to rush to the attack.

The casualties, reduced visibilty and resultant panic would in theory, allow a breakthrough. In practice, the attacks were more successful in the first attempts. The effects were diluted with time, due to gas masks and countermeasures. Even the first attacks petered out,as the tactics and equipment of WW1 armies were not set up for fast, deep penetrations after neutralizing the front trenches.

WW2 was far different. Massed tank formations with motorized troops did the suppression and did allow for deeper penetrations. This was reinforced with heavy tactical air attacks. As long as they could concentrate their forces, Germany's tactics worked well in the initial years.(In this case some gasses could be a detriment, as they restricted visibilty.)

When Germany was on the upswing, gas was not needed. By the last two years of the war it might be considered as a desperate measure. However the conditions for successful deployment were gone. On the Eastern Front the Soviets deployed defence in depth sufficient to blunt any large scale attack.

In the West after 1944, the lines were so fluid, that real-time confirmation of Allied troop positions was required. Germany struggled to even send recce flights to find suitable attack points. Not only that, overwhelming Allied air superiority restricted troop movements to such a degree that large scale concentration of forces for penetration was difficult. Even when it was accomplished as in the Ardennes, re-supply was problematic.

The only way I could see he use of gas was in terror weapons like V1 and V2.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#11

Post by jesk » 17 Sep 2019, 12:39

I see the effectiveness of such weapons in the fight against bridgeheads. Normandy, Rhine, Wisla, Oder. Breakthrough rates could be slowed down.

Germany lost 40% of prisoners in last 100 days of war. Maybe with the advent of tanks, a way out of a positional war was found. Hence the change in the tactics of using gases?

Image

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#12

Post by wm » 17 Sep 2019, 12:57

maltesefalcon wrote:
17 Sep 2019, 01:26
WW1 created just the kind of conditions that allowed gas attacks. Fairly static troop positions to allow accurate deployment.

It wasn't that static:
Germany believed in using surprise and high concentrations of gas against the Allies. They also fired both chemical and high explosive shells during an attack so that the result was even more deadly than either of the attacks by themselves. Persistent agents often served as gas barriers in both the offence and the defence.

The use of gas barriers and gas pockets to limit the advance of troops through certain areas and channelise them into kill zones also changed the battlefield.
Brian Blodgett, Germany's Use of Chemical Warfare in World War I

Image
Chemical warfare in World War I : the American experience, 1917-1918, by Charles E. Heller

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#13

Post by wm » 17 Sep 2019, 13:05

jesk wrote:
17 Sep 2019, 10:42
And the Germans really had a miracle-weapon, against which the enemy is powerless - tabun.
The Allies had a miracle-weapon too - the strategic bomber that in reprisals could have drenched German cities in mustard gas and salted them with anthrax spores.
Operation Vegetarian anyone?

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#14

Post by Stiltzkin » 17 Sep 2019, 15:16

Germany lost 40% of prisoners in last 100 days of war. Maybe with the advent of tanks, a way out of a positional war was found. Hence the change in the tactics of using gases?
From July-November 1918 the Imperial German Army suffered: 78,196 KIA, 359,670 WIA and 347,867 MIA. I do not know how many of the missing were killed, but the Sanitätsbericht lists 457,871 irrecoverables for the last year. The source on the wikipage is Tucker. Edit: Looks like someone lumped together KIA + WIA + MIA, also double counting the PoWs. The correct figures would be : 437,866 killed and wounded, 347,867 missing, for a total of 785,733 casualties.
It wasn't that static:
Yes that is correct but the advance rates after an actual penetration and the exploitation phase clearly differed. Another thing to consider and which may speak against the fact is, that many reagents will dissipate. The notion that an area becomes completely inaccessible is also fallacious, depending on what is used of course.
Image

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#15

Post by maltesefalcon » 18 Sep 2019, 01:35

Another metric to be considered is what actual damage was done historically by use of gas?
Depending on whose figures you believe about 1% of military deaths (ca. 85,000) were attributed to gas between 1915-18. To this must be added of course the manifold number of non-lethal casualties.

The weapon was surely terrifying enough for those who found themselves in the middle of the cloud. But was the major contribution simply mayhem?

Post Reply

Return to “What if”