Hitler and chemical weapons

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#16

Post by thaddeus_c » 18 Sep 2019, 01:54

jesk wrote:
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!
wow! a picture of a horse wearing a gas mask while a uniformed man clasps the reins tightly, manage that several hundred thousand more times and surviving a gas attack like an easy lap around the track ...

article discussing what estimates were of Allied chemical and nerve agents https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lions.html

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

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#17

Post by thaddeus_c » 18 Sep 2019, 02:01

Stiltzkin wrote:
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.
one German advantage was mobile warfare, they would be reduced to 1910's battlefield (inconveniently located in the middle of USSR)


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

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#18

Post by Stiltzkin » 18 Sep 2019, 15:12

one German advantage was mobile warfare, they would be reduced to 1910's battlefield (inconveniently located in the middle of USSR)
Indeed, though their effectiveness vis the Russian Army was the same as in WW1, with less motorization and employment of gas :)
article discussing what estimates were of Allied chemical and nerve agents https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lions.html
Top
Yes, I am familiar with that article, but it is not exactly of academic nature.

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

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#19

Post by jesk » 18 Sep 2019, 21:51

wm wrote:
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?
Everything converges into puzzles. Mustard affects mainly the eyes. Like a regular pepper cylinder. Pouring mustard gas into German cities and general mortality are Churchill's bluffs. Hitler believed him.
Anthrax could fly with FAA missiles. This could be a total terror for London. These missiles did not record air defense and, unlike German cities, residents did not have the opportunity to hide.

good article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lions.html

Until now, many believed his reluctance to use these weapons on Allied soldiers stemmed from his own bitter experiences of being gassed during World War I.

As a young soldier, on the night of October 13-14, 1918, near Ypres, Corporal Hitler was exposed to mustard gas released by the British that left him temporarily blind. It ended his war, and apparently left him with a strong desire never to see gas used again.

But now a startling new explanation has come to light. According to Frank J. Dinan, a distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Canisius College in Buffalo, New York State, a scientist close to Hitler exaggerated the Allies' capability of hitting back with their own chemical weapons, which caused the Fuhrer to rethink his plans.

If Professor Dinan's extraordinary claim is true, it means that a German scientist, up until now regarded as a war criminal, might be one of the greatest unsung heroes of the 20th century.

Image

Had Hitler instructed the use of Tabun, tens of thousands of Allied troops may have met horrific fates on the Normandy Beaches

In the autumn of 1944, for example, Robert Ley, the head of the German Labour Front, implored Albert Speer to convince Hitler of the merits of nerve gases. 'He must use it!' he pleaded. 'Now he has to do it! When else! This is the last moment!'

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#20

Post by Terry Duncan » 19 Sep 2019, 13:14

Of interest here may be the V-3 project 'super gun' installation, which many believe may have been intended to shell London with nerve gas shells, although Churchill had many documents concerning this either destroyed or classifed, and the classified documents remain so for many years to come so I am told.

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

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#21

Post by wm » 19 Sep 2019, 21:32

jesk wrote:
18 Sep 2019, 21:51
Anthrax could fly with FAA missiles. This could be a total terror for London. These missiles did not record air defense and, unlike German cities, residents did not have the opportunity to hide.
The V-2 was a joke. Through the entire campaign they delivered fewer explosives than a medium size carpet bombing raid.
A raid that not only delivered its bombs inaccurately but dropped all the bombers near the target too.

The Germans didn't have supersonic dispersal warheads capable to spread the spores over a wide area and weren't capable of creating them.
The rockets would uselessly burry most its cargo deep underground at supersonic speeds, and destroy it by the heat of the impact.

A year later nuclear bombs would arrive at the rate of several per months and that would be the end of the story.
The last thing the Germans needed was a few more months of the war.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#22

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 21 Sep 2019, 03:25

It seems sort of obvious to me that Hitler didn't order gas use because the Allies would have used it on Germany to far greater effect given the Allies' far greater strategic bombing capability. This isn't a perfect source but a quick Google search turned up this:
During World War II, Churchill was always prepared to use chemical weapons, but only if the enemy unleashed them first. In February 1943, when London learned the Germans might use gas against the Russians in the Donets Basin, Churchill wrote to his Chiefs of Staffs Committee: “In the event of the Germans using gas on the Russians…We shall retaliate by drenching the German cities with gas on the largest possible scale.”
https://www.history.com/news/the-nazis- ... -to-use-it

IIRC Hitler was similarly squeamish about small-scale use of Amerika bombers because they would only have further motivated the U.S., which was under-mobilized relative to the other great powers throughout the war. Hitler was a rational actor in many/most cases.

The only real question for me is why he didn't order the use of gas during his last desperate days when he ordered the destruction of Germany in a fit of pique over the Germans not being worthy of him. Even there, however, Hitler surely realized his orders weren't being followed and wouldn't be followed; he probably didn't want a dramatic instance of insubordination flowing from Wehrmacht refusal to use gas.

There's also a freely-available undergrad thesis on the topic: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/944/. I haven't read it; I don't place much faith in UG scholarship; but maybe it has some good cites on the issues.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

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

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#23

Post by wm » 21 Sep 2019, 11:18

The Germans were sure the Americans had tabun because it's inventor Gerhard Schrader, patented it in the UK, Switzerland, and the US.

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

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#24

Post by thaddeus_c » 21 Sep 2019, 16:58

Terry Duncan wrote:
19 Sep 2019, 13:14
Of interest here may be the V-3 project 'super gun' installation, which many believe may have been intended to shell London with nerve gas shells, although Churchill had many documents concerning this either destroyed or classifed, and the classified documents remain so for many years to come so I am told.
it certainly was an elaborate construction to only deliver conventional shells? that V-4 Rheinbote is in the same category, with 80-lb. warhead?

they both make a lot more sense if the scheme was to use gas or nerve agents.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#25

Post by Takao » 22 Sep 2019, 02:10

Not really, the Paris Gun shells only had 15lbs of explosive, and never fired gas shells, nor were they intended to.

Not everything the Germans did has to make sense to an outside observer.

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

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#26

Post by thaddeus_c » 22 Sep 2019, 02:48

Takao wrote:
22 Sep 2019, 02:10
Not really, the Paris Gun shells only had 15lbs of explosive, and never fired gas shells, nor were they intended to.

Not everything the Germans did has to make sense to an outside observer.
and not everything done was insanity.

they were preparing 1,000's of shells filled with gas and nerve agents, and also making elaborate preparations for a pair of weapons that we would consider having smaller payloads.

was simply pointing out they made have had a dual purpose.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#27

Post by Terry Duncan » 22 Sep 2019, 14:28

I would say the most curious part of the V3/V4 saga is that the details are still classified, rather strange if these things were just normal guns. They also consist of a lot of effort for very minimal return if they were purely for conventional weapons.

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.

#28

Post by Robert Rojas » 22 Sep 2019, 17:34

Greetings to both citizen 'wm' and the community as a whole. Howdy 'wm'! Long time no talk to! Well sir, in reference to your installment of Thursday - September 19, 2019 - 11:32am, old yours truly rather suspects that the Anglo/Americans were, in a fashion, anticipating the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction at some point during the course of their combat operations in OR around WESTERN and CENTRAL Europe. Actually, I am rather surprised that the INCIDENT of December 02, 1943 in Bari, Italy has not been broached during the evolution of this so-called "WHAT IF" exercise. Now, on December 02, 1943, the Luftwaffe staged a rather spectacular and quite successful air raid on the Italian Port of Bari. One of the maritime casualties was the U.S.S. JOHN HARVEY. The U.S.S. JOHN HARVEY was an ammunition laden Liberty Ship and when the U.S.S. JOHN HARVEY blew up, it also detonated the 2,000 MUSTARD GAS bombs that it was "CLANDESTINELY" transporting. To this very day, no one really knows how many Italian civilians perished during this catastrophe OR are still suffering from the long term after-effects from exposure to this weapon. So, one must ask the following question, WHAT WAS THE INTENDED PURPOSE of these 2,000 MUSTARD GAS bombs? And as I stated early on in this thread, maybe this topic might have been better suited for the HOLOCAUST And The TWENTIETH CENTURY WAR CRIMES section of the forum. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this wanting topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the ever enduring land that is Poland.

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

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

Re: Hitler and chemical weapons

#29

Post by wm » 24 Sep 2019, 16:09

Howdy!
[ I hope it's not cultural appropriation :) ]

I suppose some American general put a requirement for a quick retaliation in case the Germans used their chemical weapons, and the military bureaucracy mindlessly executed it.
Pre-ww2 all countries expected gas war and were preparing for it (including Britain and Poland), and this included both gas defenses and gas weapons.

I have a Polish sci-fi book from 1928 and the author describes there massive, thousand-bomber German gas-bomb raids on Polish cities in 1975.
I don't know how it ended because the writing is as boring as hell, although it's certain we won.

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.

#30

Post by Robert Rojas » 24 Sep 2019, 19:40

Greetings to both citizen 'wm' and the community as a whole. Howdy 'wm'! Well sir, in light of your installment of Tuesday - September 24, 2019 - 6:09am, old yours truly can assure you that if there is any one particular individual that is blatantly guilty of unabashed cultural appropriation, it is the forum's old UNCLE BOB! Paradoxically, since I am a person of mixed racial ancestry, the activities of daily living constitutes wholesale "cultural appropriation" on my part. So, if some yahoo ever accuses you of so-called "cultural appropriation", then give them the universal middle finger! SOUND LIKE A PLAN!? Now, I am personally intrigued with the work of SCIENCE FICTION that you described from year 1928. Do you recall the name of that particular work of SCIENCE FICTION? If so, would there be ANY English Language translations of that work of literature? Undoubtedly, brother Futurist (Alvin Toffler) would certainly revel in the WHAT IF world of Central and Eastern Europe in year 1928. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Well, that's my latest two incidental Yankee cents worth on this sojourn into the netherworld of Chemical Warfare - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in your corner of the ever enduring Land of Poland.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :) :wink: 8-) :thumbsup:
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

Post Reply

Return to “What if”