created by Maleficent-Help-4806 on 29/01/2025 at 13:25 UTC
6 upvotes, 6 top-level comments (showing 6)
I read recently in my studies on chemical warfare that Hitler stockpiled and produced over 10 tons of sarin, tabun and soman during WW2. What if in a desperate attempt towards his downfall, he ordered these munitions to be used? Could it have aided them more than harm?
Comment by Lupanu85 at 29/01/2025 at 15:33 UTC*
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
While it's true that chemical weapons were reasonably effective in WW1, they still weren't the main source of casualties. That was artillery.
And, quite frankly, WW1 was the point in time where chemical weapons were probably the most effective they could have been, due to the relatively static nature of trench warfare.
Basically, flood an enemy trench with gas and the soldiers inside have to choose between staying in the trenches and risk exposure, or getting out in the open to get picked off.
It's hard to use chemical weapons in a war fought like WW2, though. First of all, the front lines are nowhere near as static, and the concentration of enemies is nowhere near the same as in the trenches anyway. Second, it would be easy for at least the motorized or armored Allied units (which were seen as the greatest threat) to just outrun the gas clouds, even if modern CBRN protection for vehicles didn't really exist at the time. Third, their initial successes made it very clear, very early on, to Germany that WW2 was not going to be fought in the same way as WW1, and that the first two points would make chemical weapons moot. By the time things started going really badly in Germany's favor, nobody was going to suggest anything like chemical warfare anymore because there was no real benefit anymore.
So, really, all Germany would accomplish is to make the Allies even more annoyed at them
Comment by sonofabutch at 29/01/2025 at 13:31 UTC
14 upvotes, 2 direct replies
The U.S. and Britain had them as well. Goering was asked after he was captured why the Germans didn’t use them at Normandy, and he said it was because Hitler knew the Allies would retaliate with the same. But because the Germans were so dependent on horses[1], gas attacks would be more devastating on them than on the Allies.
1: https://youtu.be/LyZK8k4gzyg?si=Krc8f_yQInQkl1Qy
Comment by 2552686 at 30/01/2025 at 01:13 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Imagine 130 German bombers, each carrying two tons of bombs, only the bombs are filled not with high explosive, but phosgine gas, and they drop on the East End of London. Or alternatively imagine 95 Vickers Wellington bombers, each carrying two tons of phosgine gas dropping on Hamburg.
Both sides were understandably TERRIFIED of this, so neither side did it. It's a classic example of deterrence theory.
Comment by spike at 29/01/2025 at 22:36 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Hitler was affected by gas warfare as a soldier in WW1, and was hospitalized because of it, so he had a distaste for that sort of thing.
Comment by axeteam at 30/01/2025 at 05:32 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Guess who has better industrial capacities than the Germans and can therefore produce more chemicals than the Germans to dump on Germany?
Comment by BastardofMelbourne at 30/01/2025 at 05:37 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
đź’«nothing changesđź’«
Ten tons of sarin is nothing. Syria had over 1,000 tonnes stockpiled which they burned through in their civil war. Even then, wasn't any more effective than their regular explosive munitions. Turns out that putting gas in an artillery shell isn't as effective as just putting bombs in an artillery shell.
The dirty secret about chemical weapons is that the only reason they've stayed banned for so long is because they're not effective enough to bother using.