Wars and Conflicts permalink
A Good-ol' What if!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Hi all,
Just thought I'd stick this what-if scenario on for everyone's thoughts.
We all know that during WW2 the Germans were manufacturing and stockpiling nerve gas weapons (they developed Tabun and Sarin in the 30s by accident while researching new insecticides).
So, picture this, it is 6th June 1944, and things are going bad for Germany, the Russians are closing in from the East, and the news reaches Hitler that the Allies are landing in Normandy. He figures, it is just a diversion so rather than deploy his Panzer reserves, he'll get a few Luftwaffe planes to spray the invasion beaches with Sarin. He figures that will put the Allies off launching a full-scale invasion(without realising that Normandy is the real deal).
Then, he figures if he's going to let the genie out of the bottle, and use chemicals, may as well use them on the Russians as well...
Now, given this rather horrific scenario, what happens next???
Cheers
DL -
Message 2
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Hi DL,
How's tricks?
I think the main reason Hitler didn't use such agents at the time was firstly that he didn't have air superiority, The Allies also had stockpiles of similar agents and had he used such agents, the dye would have been cast and the end would have been a certainty. The allies with over whelming air superiority would have replied in kind.... He last two hopes would have been dashed i.e. splitting the allies in the west or uniting with the Western Allies against the Soviets. -
Message 3
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Hello Mani,
and Happy New Year!
Things are good mate cheers, apart from bad news over Christmas (I had a good moan on the "...Casualties" thread to get it out of my system), things are OK.
To be honest, I didn't think that the allies had anything with the power of nerve agents, they had plenty of chemical weapons stockpiled, but it was mainly WW1 generation stuff, Phosgene, Lewisite, Mustard. Nothing with the power to kill through skin contact like Sarin or Tabun.
British and US chemists hadn't come up with the stuff yet, in fact there weren't aware of it until they seized quantities of it after the war (the Russians captured most of it, and developed their chemical arsenal based on the German research) Basically we had no idea IMO that they had this capability, and had they used it, we had no NBC protective gear capable of stopping it. If they had been aware then surely there would have been Atropine issued to medics? I've never seen anything to indicate that any Atropine was ever issued (ok Combopens would have been years away, but a bottle of the stuff to treat those with nerve agent poisoning would have been pretty much standard issue!).
I'll stick a post on tomorrow with my guess at the outcome, but wanted to see everyone else's view first off!
Hope all is well in Mani-land.
Cheers
DL -
Message 4
Posted by grey ghost (U2012073) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Hello DL,i think retaliation would have been swift and terrible,not certain about this but didnt an allied warship/supplyship sink somewhere in an Italian port loaded with chemical weaponary in 1944,so at the very least the Germans could have expected to get back what they had given...Of course if the Germans had continued to inflict large scale casualties on the western front by use of chemical/biological weapons then we may have seen a flight diverted from the Pacific to the western theatre....bye bye Berlin complete with mushroom cloud. Cheers,the Saint.
-
Message 5
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 6th January 2006
DL,
I fear you may ignore certain realities in your scenario. First, the prevailing wind was west to East. So, unless you have developed effective precautions then launching a chemical attack is slightly risky for the Germans.
Secondly: Although the Germans did have substantial amounts of chemical weapons which were in advance, in terms of their toxicity, anything the Allies had, they didn't have enough combined with the ability to deliver this amount to the front lines. (Thank the Lord for Bomber Command, USAAF 8th Air Force and Tactical Commands of the RAF and USAAF).
Thirdly, Just where are these few Luftwaffe planes? Withdrawn because they were geting a pasting from the RAF and USAAF together with the flak from the offshore bombardment. I'm sure you'll agree, it wasn't going to be crop spraying for these Luftwaffe pilots?
Fourthly, from what I've read, the troops landing on D Day had uniforms sprayed with a very basic coating designed to defeat a chemical attack. Now I agree with hindsight that this coating was more trouble than it was worth, however it would have provided a limited amount of protection.
Point Five: (I can't spell Fifthly to my satisfaction!) I work in the Chemical Industry and it is quite hard to incapacitate an individual with a Toxic Chemical. We aren't talking Goldfinger here. (For example Chlorine, Boron TriFluoride and Phosphorous Oxy Chloride are very toxic (and I have been exposed to all of these in a relatively confined space and lived!).)
Sixthly: Okay, let's say the German miltary has managed to inflict (let's say for arguements sake) 50% casualties on the D Day Force through the use of chemical weapons, well the Plan would still roll on. Further Divisions would still be landed in time with the Plan.
Seventhly: Although I admit that the nerve agents the Germans had were more effective, the Allies had greater stockpiles of Phosgene and Mustard Gas and a much better arm of the miltary (Bomber Command and the USAAF to deliver these weapons into the heart of Germany.
Eighthly: I believe (as it can't be proved) that there would have been enough survivors amongst the D Day landing forces to have made life very difficult for an attacking force over chemical contaminated ground. As I'm sure you are aware a modern NBC suit restricts movement, visual awareness, sound awareness, smells, surely vital infromation for anyone, let alone a combat soldier!
That's enough of my thoughts for now. Happy New Year DL.
Cheers AA. -
Message 6
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Didnt Churchill say early on (though wether officially or in private im not sure) that were Hitler to deploy any use of chemical or gas weapons no matter how small then the RAF would have literally covered germany with gas in retaliation?
I would imagine also if they had used it, if the allies were unable to find sufficient stockpiles to retaliate then the first Atom Bombs would have been landing on Berlin.... -
Message 7
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 6th January 2006
Disgruntled_Renegade,
Churchill was not opposed to the use of Chemical Warfare by any stretch of the Imagination.
Read his (Churchill) History for the terms he was willing to release this weapon.
Cheers AA. -
Message 8
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
Hi DL,
What a super, What If. I was about to contribute but I believe Arnald has nailed it. Attempting to find the Luftwaffe on D day would be tantamount to finding a French Division in the first wave.
Cheers. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 9th January 2006
Morning all,
Ok let's move the goalposts a little! AA, the Luftwaffe were I agree not much use to anyone on D-Day, so the chances of them making a chemical bombing run on the beaches are pretty non-existent. However, let's say that the Germans have built chemical defences into the "Atlantic Wall", and have for example chemical mines on the beaches. What would be the effect of such weapons? IMO probably a 90% casualty rate amongst both attackers and defenders, so a real mess all round.
Your fifth (I agree, fifthly doesn't look good!!!) point on the effectiveness of chemicals, I find a bit odd to say the least, particularly for someone who is working in the chemical industry. While there has been enough in the way of spin regarding WMDs in recent years, the effectiveness of organophosphate nerve agents is something you can't really doubt surely? During my military time I was an NBC instructor for a while, and found the stuff pretty terrifying. The lethal dose for something as toxic as a acetylcholinesterase inhibitor like tabun or sarin (which the Germans had both of by this time) is to say the least very small, and "chemical proof" clothing is just going to be a waste of time-one droplet on your skin and its all over.
It is for that reason that I would suggest 90% + casualties on the attacking side. The defenders would not fare much better really, but I do believe that the use of nerve agents could have literally stopped the invasion in its tracks.
Your point on the allies response to such a use of chemicals, I have no doubt that Bomber Command would have been dropping gas bombs into Berlin within 24 hours, but then the Nazis would have been lobbing V2s loaded with Sarin into London in a short time also.
Your last point on the actions of the remaining troops left alive in the invasion area. I would doubt they would be in any state to fight at all, and the Germans remember have no reason to attack, they are the ones defending.
I agree utterly with your point regarding the degenerative effect of NBC on the capabilities of a soldier (one particularly horrible instance of playing football in full NBC gear in the build up to the invasion of Kuwait in 91 springs rapidly to my mind!!!), but this would work tactically in favour of the defender. It is basically much harder to assault a beach under fire wearing a respirator than it is to blast away with an MG42 wearing the same gear. This is however, a what if scenario...
Cheers
DL -
Message 10
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
DL,
I'm afraid I only have time to fire off a quick response. I will think about and research this further. Doubts in my mind are currently around the scale of production and storage facilities required too effectively cover the landing areas. I'm also considering how the Germans would have delivered the chemicals onto the landing area. Chemical mines are an interesting idea. I'll take this on board. Once I've got these details sorted I may have a more considered view. (I may even overlook that most of this "weaponry" would have been in the Pas de Calais!).
Regarding my thoughts on the toxicity of chemicals, well I seem to spend half my life scaring others about the dangers of chemicals so they don't become blase and take the correct precautions. I seem to be a little (read a lot)guilty of this in my comment. It may be because I also spend a fair amount of time reassuring neighbours of ours that just because they have a chemical plant nearby doesn't neccesarily mean that they have the lifespan of a fruitfly if, we get it wrong. (We try very, very hard not to get it wrong, mainly for our own well being).
Other quick thoughts are that the Allies through Ultra, reconnaisance of the beaches and through information from the resistance would have, if not a complete picture, a very good idea of what the Germans were planning. I don't think that this would have been used as a justification for a first strike, however there would have been increased precautions. Possibly Bomber Command and the USAAF would have been diverted into plastering the Pas de Calais and Normandy from April onwards? One of the reasons they weren't used in this role was to minimise damage to France. I can't see this reason standing up for long in the likeliehood of unrestricted chemical warfare against the invasion troops.
Leaving that aside, yes it would be as you say, a real mess all around. Your point regarding troops on the defensive is well taken, I wasn't thinking (obviously). The Germans would have no need to retake ground if they stopped the invasion cold on the beaches below high tide mark. So there are less exotic chemicals which would do the job just as well providing you are willing to spray them around the place. I'll also consider these. (I'm thinking here mainly corrosives, they won't kill as many but would incapacitate, as well as damaging equipment).
In the light of this would the landings have taken place at all? An alternative would be to continue to threaten the north of France and commit to the main invasion in the south as operation Dragoon. (Yes this would have caused certain, fairly massive logistics problems, however, may have been the only real alternative.
Certainly a very different D day, as I don't have the resources of SHAEF it may take me a while to go through all the options!
Cheers AA. -
Message 11
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Arnald and DL
The easiest way for the Germans to wipe out the allied landing with Sarin,would undoubtly be with artillery.
The allied response would have been as earlier stated,a massive gasattack probably most mustard on German cities.
A thing Hitler was very well avare of,furthermore was Hitler nearly blinded by gas in the WWI and did see it as an inhuman weapon.
Probably folloved by as DL said by a sarin attack by V2oes on London.
Meaning that the war did end late summer 1944 with a higly depopulated Germany and southern England.
I´ve seen reports on that its actually worse with a gasattack on civilian population than a nucelar attack.
Y friend
Hasse -
Message 12
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Its surprising in a way that towards the end at least, the germans didnt try throwing chemical weapons at the Soviets! but presumably the Allies would have retaliated but seeing as it was only a friendship of convience perhaps Allied command would have sat back!
-
Message 13
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
DL: I have read several acc ounts of a German bombing raid on an Italian port on the Adriatic Sea. The U.S. had several ships there loaded with nerve gas just in case the senerio you brought up would happen. Anyhow, one of the ships was hit and large amounts of gas escaped causing many military and civilian deaths. The U.S. tried to cover it up for decades. It finally became common knowledge in the 1970 or 1980s.
-
Message 14
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
I find it surprising too, that the Nazis didn't fall back on their chemical weapons at the end, when the Russians were knocking on the door, you'd have thought they'd have not hesitated.
Perhaps this was due to the fact that by then, the leading Nazis (Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Goering mainly) were so deluded that they were unable to comprehend their own imminent doom?
Even with Berlin surrounded and under shellfire, Hitle clung to the idea that some "miracle wespon" would save them from the Russians, he even believed that Roosevelt's death was the sign that indicated the start of the "endsieg".
Anyone in the middle echelon of the Nazi hierarchy or army was probably too pre-occupied with saving their own skin, or escaping from the Russians to think rationally about counterattacking.
If you think in "what if" terms, I suppose the ideal opportunity would have been to hit Stalingrad before the encirclement. Pull back the troops, and the city is wiped off the map in a rain of gas bombs. Then they simply move in after the gas has dissipated, and they have taken Stalingrad. The Russian build up to carry out the encirclement could have been equally destroyed and with the German claim that the Russians were "untermensch", it does make you wonder why they never did it! With the Western Allies, I would doubt that they would have used bio-chemical weapons against Germany, for fear of retaliation on Britain's cities and military bases. But Russia, well that war was so barbaric in conduct and intensity, the use of nerve agent would have been quite in keeping with Nazi racial ideology. It would, IMO have stemmed the Russian advance, and could maybe have knocked the Russians out of the war.
DL -
Message 15
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
DL,
Quick few thoughts again. I've been looking into Sarin and Tabun (I may now be on the CIA's most wanted list, can I call on you as a witness that the research was purely for this thread?).
There is another practicality that I've thought of in the D Day scenario. One of the ways of dealing with Tabun and Sarin (like most chemicals) is to dilute with plenty of water. One of the things that the invasion troops weren't short of was water. So I suspect that the efficiency of these nerve agents would have been much reduced. (A bigger problem in the Kuwaiti desert I'll grant you).
I'll certainly grant that the better opportunity and more believeable scenario would be at Stalingrad.
I'm still digging, toxicity data requires a lot of interpretation together with some empirical modelling. (I'll have to do the modelling intuitively, I can't justify the software package and doubt my skill to do the number crunching so it stands up).
Cheers AA. -
Message 16
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Oh, and I think off the top of my head the ship with mustard gas shells on board that was sunk in the Med was the John Harvey.
(I may seem to have shot myself in the foot with this as obviously there would be plenty of water around the John Harvey, however mustard gas shells contain gas, Sarin and Tabun are liquids, Sarin is quite volatile, however infinitely soluble in water.) I may have to go over to the Science Boards for a chat shortly, I'm beginning to get confused.
Cheers AA. -
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Hi AA,
Not sure about the character witness to your erm... research! I reckon the CIA may have a point, particularly if their dossier on you contains info on your football allegiences!!!
A very worrying combination when combined with WMDs!!!!
Just an afterthought on Stalingrad, I reckon I may have hit on a really nasty one there. If they had deployed sarin or tabun, the extremely low temperatures in the Russian winter could have made it even more deadly, since evaporation rates would have slowed, and we've have had a much longer period of lethality after the initial use (I am trying to recall my NBC stats from memory here, since I don't want to start googling nerve agents on my employer's network, it would probably concern them!!!
Anyway, given extreme low temperature, we could have seen sarin remaining in liquid form, and lying on the ground as a particularly nasty trap for the whole of the winter, so given a high saturation with the stuff, Stalingrad would probably have been uninhabitable until the summer of 43. Very nasty. The Germans could have even used it defensively by laying "gas minefields" in the snow (spray an area of ground, then just leave it for the Russians to crawl through, they approach to attack in their usual "human wave" infantry manner, and they simply never reach the attacking point, they get exposed before even beginning their attack. Horrible, but very effective) since nerve agent is deliverable through skin contact.
With D-Day, Hasse's argument that artillery use swings it for me, yes they'd have plentiful water to dilute the stuff, but in the case of sarin, one droplet is lethal, and even non-lethal doses would mean "for you the war is over Tommy". An artillery attack on the beach-head would have been enough to push the US back into the sea at Omaha, they came close with conventional weapons, and the only one which would have gained any ground IMO would have been Utah, where they landed in the wrong spot, and in an undefended area, but with the other beaches struggling, the US forces on Utah would have had to face withdrawal or annihilation, since with the other four beaches in chaotic retrear (I'd still estimate 90%+ fatal casualties on a "First use" of the stuff), the Germans could just concentrate their artillery on the remaining points. The airborne troops would have lasted longer (they were spread out, and not a good target for chemicals, which work best against compact, massed forces such as a landing beach), but with no resupply or reinforcements from the beaches, defeat would have been inevitable.
DL -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Oops AA,
Mustard gas is also a liquid! Blister agent, relies on skin contact to cause massive blistering. Officially classed as an incapacitating agent rather than a lethal one. Only kills if ingested or inhaled in aerosol form (or through shock induced by fluid loss-massive blisters).
Cheers
DL -
Message 19
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Very interesting discusssion!! I did my final year toxicology report and presentation on the chemical agents, and an ex-boss of mine worked at Porton in respiration neurophysiology.....
I think whoever said it would be a huge mess is right - in fact I think it MIGHT have stopped the invasion as far as D-day is concerned, however a big caveat is how the agents would be delivered. Not by the Luftwaffe I think. The mines might have worked though.
In the end, it would have meant many more deaths, both on the beaches, and in the A-bomb strike on Berlin that would follow, plus maybe more out and out slaughter of forced labour and occupied persons.
Glad it didn't happen.
I'm pretty sure this ship that was sunk could not have been carrying nerve agents - the allies didn't have them!
Have a look at "A Higher form of Killing" by Seymour Hersh, its good on the subject. -
Message 20
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Oops AA,
Mustard gas is also a liquid! Blister agent, relies on skin contact to cause massive blistering. Officially classed as an incapacitating agent rather than a lethal one. Only kills if ingested or inhaled in aerosol form (or through shock induced by fluid loss-massive blisters).
Cheers
¶Ù³¢Ìý
DL, quite correct, however the ship exploded, from the reports the chemical had to be released from the shells in a gaseous form, settling as a liquid when condensing in the atmosphere. (Otherwise no casualties as mustard gas should react to form a harmless compond with sea water).
Cheers AA, (trying to show I'm not a muppet and failing it appears). -
Message 21
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Hi AA,
I did have a sadly morbid interest in chemical warfare whilst sitting around in the Saudi Desert waiting for the first Gulf War to start. I was (as a mere 20 year old) convinced that I was going to get gassed, and became quite fixated on the subject, so read up in great detail on the rather horrific methods that man has created to kill his fellow man, so have a bit too much unhealthy knowledge on this subject!
As a side-note, T-Toxin has to be the worst example of a weapon anyone has concocted. A Soviet creation, a bio-toxin based on a highly refined derivative of Tetrodotoxin, the stuff which kills people who eat Fugu in Japan. It basically has the effect of causing an almost instant case of haemorrhagic fever, and the victim actually bleeds to death before the toxin can kill them. Seriously horrific, and allegedly used in Laos by the Communist government there in the 1980s, no doubt testing it for the Kremlin. It's basically equivalent to instant Ebola in a nice powdered form. Horrible. Compared to that, sarin is a doddle.
No doubt there are worse ones, but that is the worst I have come across yet, and just goes to prove what a charming, friendly and hospitable species we truly are.
Cheerful stuff eh!
DL -
Message 22
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
DL,
I can fully understand your interest and it is indeed cheerful stuff. I'm still attempting to square various circles, comparing toxicity data, relating it to actual incidents etc. and trying to come to some reasoned conclusion.
One thing I realise is puzzling me and my experience here is hindering me. I'm struggling to get my head around the delivery system and mechanism. (My experience is hindering me as it is all on how to stop material getting out, and then to stop it getting worse, the exact opposite of the aim in this situation).
As you say, cheerful stuff.
AA. -
Message 23
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 11th January 2006
Dl and AA
Yes gas is rather awfull but it still not IHMO as bad as biologocal warfare.
To take a sidetrack of the issue.
I dont understand that the worlds leader wet their pants in fright of a nuclear attack by terrorist,when a Biological or Chemical attack is both easier and more devestating.
A bizzare example is that half a teacup of powdered Plutonium in the NY drinking water is enough to theoretical kill of the whole population,but you need several kilos to make a small A-bomb.
Y morbid friend
Hasse -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
DL,
I can fully understand your interest and it is indeed cheerful stuff. I'm still attempting to square various circles, comparing toxicity data, relating it to actual incidents etc. and trying to come to some reasoned conclusion.
One thing I realise is puzzling me and my experience here is hindering me. I'm struggling to get my head around the delivery system and mechanism. (My experience is hindering me as it is all on how to stop material getting out, and then to stop it getting worse, the exact opposite of the aim in this situation).
As you say, cheerful stuff.
´¡´¡.Ìý
AA,
Regarding actual battlefield use, I'd guess that the Iran-Iraq war would be the best place to start, although I'm not entirely sure that there is much data available openly as to effective range (from detonation), kill rates, contamination plumes and so on, I doubt that such info is freely available (and since yet again I am posting in work time, I'm not going to start googling on such things. I'll do a bit of research later). If I recall correctly Sarin was the Iraqis' weapon of choice as opposed to the more toxic next generation stuff produced during the cold war (VX by the US, Soman by the Soviet bloc-we Brits stuck by Sarin).
As you correctly stated the early nerve agents were highly volatile and non-persistent, so despite their lethality, they would disperse quite quickly, but the likes of VX and Soman were most nasty than that, they were persistent, and so designed to remain on the ground for days and weeks, slowly evaporating.
The only info I have ever studied in depth is the typical essential squaddie info-how to identify the agent, how to avoid it killing you, how to decontaminate, what it will do if it gets you.
With regards to delivery systems, the main ones would be by aircraft spraying, the much more primitive cylinder methods (as per WW1) and the more preferable explosive means. The advantage of using shells or bombs is that the agent is released a long way away from your own troops (avoiding gassing your own troops). The usual way would be to have a shell filled with your agent under pressure (similar to an aerosol can-liquified) with a small explosive charge-you want to spread the stuff around without burning it all up in a big explosion. The fact that it is stored under pressure ensures that the slightest "bang" will spray it all over the place.
A second concept was the "binary" weapon-usually an artillery shell where the agent is contained in two separate compartments, in an easily mixed state. You have two compounds which when mixed will create the agent. This has the advantage of being "safer" for the troops using it, since if the shell is damaged before firing, it will leak the constituent compounds rather than nerve agent (although if I remember correctly the constituent chemicals are still highly toxic, although not to the same extent). The shell is then fired, and the chemical is mixed in flight by the spin generated by the rifling on the gun barrel of the weapon firing it. Safer for the troops firing the gun, just as lethal when it arrives and detonates.
With regards to the extra scary concept of using something like plutonium as a chemical weapon, well yes it would be particularly horrific, with effects lasting generations due to genetic damage in those only mildly contaminated, but this would be a real suicide mission, and one guaranteeing the person delivering the agent a horrific death, especially given plutonium's tendency to spontaneously combust in oxygen, giving off radioactive highly toxic fumes.
I really should have read more cheerful stuff when I was younger!!
DL -
Message 25
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
It’s June 1944 and the Allies have landed. Hitler decides its time the gloves came off and orders a gas strike against the invasion troops (once he wakes up!) The order is passed down the line to Rommel.
Rommel, general in the west is immediately against the entire concept. He has never been an ardent nazi and is uncomfortable with upping the stakes when he knows the chips are down. Others in the nazi hierarchy are also uncomfortable with the plan. Speer with his eye on a post war Germany is aghast and Goering, with his eye on succeeding Hitler thinks the idea futile and would jeopardize his future negotiating position.
The Allies have severely disrupted the transportation system in Northern France and all road and rail cargos have to be moved at night if at all.
Rommel, like he did in North Africa ignores Hitler’s order and could cite any number of excuses. Speer being minister of armaments would do all in his power to see the order was sabotaged. The order IMO would never have been realised. -
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Hi slimdaddy,
Interesting thoughts! Like it! OK, given your scenario, Hitler orders use of chemical weapons and Rommel (who by 1944 had already decided the war was lost) refuses. Does this trigger a wider scale revolt amongst the Wehrmacht? If it became common knowledge that Rommel had refused a "Fuhrerbefehl", would the common soldier follow Rommel or Hitler? The Generals I feel would go for Rommel. Let's be honest, only the likes of Keitel and Jodl would have stayed with Hitler. Rommel always was the "soldier's general" but would the Third Reich have fragmented as a result?
This act would have massive consequences IMO. Especially if Rommel made it known to the public that he had refused an order to use nerve gas! I have done considerable research on Rommel in the past, and think that maybe, just maybe, he would have had the strength of character to refuse this order. He may have believed in Hitler once, but by the time of June 1944, those days were long gone.
So, what happens next?
back to you!!!!
DL -
Message 27
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
-
Message 28
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 12th January 2006
Day day plus....The Allies through Ultra intercepts get wind of Hitlers gas orders. Immediatly they air drop leaflets over German lines stating that any use of chemical/toxic agents by German troops will be classed as a war crime and dealt with accordingly. They are informed that any officer captured will be shot.
The German front line troops and their enlisted troops from the east have serious reservations about using such weapons. Even now some ardent nazis still hope to sue for peace with the west and then they could all go and defeat the red army together. Rommel takes stock of the situation. He commits himself not to using gas. He can go a number of ways:
He can refuse the order and be recalled to Berlin to face the music.
He can inform Hitler that the toxic weapons can't get to the front due to logistics or whatever (and face the music)
He can inform Hitler that weather conditions were inappropiate and stall (and face the music).
Or he could confer with his commanders and assess the situation for defying Hitler. This would have major consequences and is the route I would like to develop.
Rommel has had enough. He know Hitler has gone mad and his gas order just confirms this. He was sympathetic to the July 20 plot and puts out some feelers amongst its surviviours. Meantime he detects the uneasiness among his front line troops about chemical weapons. He also knows where and who the nazi diehard who would use toxins if and when ordered to.
(A lot would depend on where and who had the actual gas/toxins)
Rommel having decided that many of his commanders and troops would be relucatant to use WMD calls together his top brass (minus the SS etc) and informs them of Hitlers order and his decision not to carry it out. His brass agree with his outlook and they have to decide what to do.
It is suggested that they could fight on with conventional weapons and hope it blows over. But in the aftermath of July 20 they know refusal of this order will probably mean they will be shot by the SS. None of them fancy that much.
This scenario could even see Rommels troops fighting in the west against the Allies on one side and Germans on the other who have been ordered into Normandy to arrest Rommel and his cohorts and release the gas.
They could ask their men to put their arms down and surrender to the Allies at the first opportunity.
They could arrest/disarm/fight/ambush SS units loyal to Hitler in the west and ask the Allies for peace. This could have wider implications and a civil war could break out between loyalists and rebels with Rommel as their figurehead. A lot would depend on the character of Rommel and perhaps you would have a better understanding of his nature than I. -
Message 29
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 13th January 2006
OK, next step.
Rommel meets with all his divisional commanders (he is now blaming poor communications links for not using chemicals) and discusses how to get out of this mess.
Meanwhile over in the East, Army Group North comes under heavy attack from the Red Army, and finds itself facing encirclement. As a last resort, its artillery commander orders use of Sarin artillery shells. The difference in the nature of the war compared to the West is such that the gunners don't even hesitate. The Russian attack is stopped dead, and suffers massive casualties, since they have never seen such a weapon, or even considered it. Soon the news spreads across the German forces who are being pressed hard across the front by the Russians, and pretty soon the Germans are using gas defensively along the entire front. The Russians are now in complete chaos, as the level of casualties amongst their totally unprotected infantry and tank troops is so high that the high command have no idea what is causing this. The Russians, for the first time since the battle of Kursk the previous year, stop their attacks, and order a withdrawal. The shattered remnants of their frontline troops begin to pull back.
Having seen the horrific results of the artillery use of sarin, the Luftwaffe start to load up for bombing raids on Moscow, Kiev and Leningrad. On the Eastern Front, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
Back to the West, and Rommel. -
Message 30
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 13th January 2006
±á³¾³¾³¾â€¦
OK, so the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Sarin is being used widespread in the east. This in itself I feel is not a war winning weapon. The Germans in the east still suffer from chronic shortages of men and material. Transport is a major problem and the half-starved German army cannot follow up its initial victories, especially as their horses cannot be protected from the sarin and quickly die. However they have bought themselves some time to lick their wounds. Stalin meanwhile in enraged. The red army and its citizens suffer like it did in 1941/42. However, like 1941/42 it will learn, adapt and retialite in kind in due course. The allies quickly locate and bomb the WMD factories.
Germany, free from immediate invasion in the east is feeling very uneasy. Germans know that their reprieve is only temporary no matter what the propaganda tells them.
They build their defences and get ready for the inevitable.
And in the west Rommel digests this turn of development and is in despair. He knows the use of sarin is hugely controversial and is by no means a popular decision amongst the nazi hierarchy and German population . Rommel, as we discussed has decided on his course of action and although he enjoys the tactic support of some high ranking officials is out on a limb. The failure to use sarin is blamed on communication problems. This excuse will soon expire. Rommel however decides that not only will he not deploy it, he will also do all in his power to prevent its deployment by anyone else. He knows he will soon be replaced and decides on a military coup in the west. Much of his army is behind his decision not to use sarin although some diehard and loyalists are determined to defy Rommel. Rommel however acts first and decisively.
At a meeting with Hitler loyalists captures them. Devoid of many of their officers many SS units and Hitler Youth are engaged and destroyed by troops loyal to Rommel. The reserve panzer units held in the rear since D-day have yet to make an appearance and their alliegance is far from sure. Their loyalties will be decisive.
The issue of supply dictates Rommels future course of action. He doesn’t want to make an active stand against Hitler but he is running out of options. A meek surrender to the allies does not auger well with his brass. Especially as they know that they would be seen as traitors to the Fatherland in its time of need.
Facing the allies on the west and German reinforcements on the east is not an appealing prospect either.
The allies in the west keep track of development via intercepts and French resistance. They respect Rommel for his conduct of the war and know that he has defied Hitler’s gas order.
Rommel and Eisenhower ponder their respective courses of action... -
Message 31
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 16th January 2006
Something has just popped into my memory here.
Prior to the July 20th plot, Rommel had a meeting with fanatical Nazi SS General Sepp Dietrich. The outcome of this meeting was that Rommel sounded out Dietrich on where his loyalties would lie if Hitler were "removed". Dietrich replied to Rommel "You are my commander, I will follow your orders."
Anyway, back to the what if...
Rommel's renegade army in the West is now cut off from all resupply and reinforcement, leaving him with no other option. He proposes a meeting with Eisenhower to discuss his "change of allegience". In Germany, there is no mention of the fact that we have Wehrmacht units fighting against SS ones in the West, and like the French mutiny in the 1914-18 war, the whole situation is being brushed under the carpet.
Hitler orders Sepp Dietrich's SS Panzer division to engage Rommel's renegade forces with Sarin.
This is too much for Dietrich to bear, and he immediately contacts Rommel. Dietrich does not want to fight Germans, and will not use nerve gas on them under any circumstances, but will not fight against other SS units.
Rommel now has control of the majority of Wehrmacht forces in the west, since his status as a national hero amongst the common soldier has ensured support, and Dietrich is bringing his SS division in, though only as a defensive force.
Eisenhower is in a very odd position, since he has an opportunity to turn a massive German army from his enemy to his ally. What to do...?
This scenario brings up various problems. Do the Western allies agree to support Rommel's men, and agree to Rommel's request for assistance, or do they simply let the Germans fight it out amongst themselves, and then move in to attack the (greatly diminished) victors?
Secondly, how will the Russians view this? Will they accept this? They have suffered more from Nazi brutality than any other people, and the war in the East has become even more barbaric with the Germans using Sarin on a large scale.
The front line in the East is now static, with no side being able to attack. The losses to German logistics (their army is mainly supplied by horses even at this stage) through Sarin means that they are limited to fighting close to railway lines, and it is impossible to advance. The Russians are in the same position, through the fact that they have lost 90% of their frontline infantry and tank units in the disastrous initial gas attack.
So, what are the options?
A-The German forces in the West surrender, leaving the US/UK led allies free to advance into Germany.
B-Rommel's troops are allowed to "switch sides" and fight against Hitler's Nazis for a "free Germany".
C-The Allies decide to wait it out, and let the Germans fight amongst themselves, then resume the attack in the west against whoever wins.
D-The Allies continue all out attack, despite the split in German forces, under Russian pressure. Stalin basically insists on this or states he will seek a separate peace with Hitler.
All yours...
DL -
Message 32
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Tuesday, 17th January 2006
Eisenhower is indeed on the horns of a dilemma. On one hand he has the troops and supplies at his disposal to break out from Normandy and turn his forces towards Germany. On the other he has the unique opportunity to embrace newfound allies, save many thousands of his soldiers lives and finish of the Nazis together.
In reality however their is no real decision for him to make.
The road to D-day has been a long, bloody and painful one. It has been an ugly war with humiliations and atrocities without equal. Eisenhower, even if he wanted to negotiate with Rommel has his hands tied from his political superiors, (not to mention Monty chomping at the bit to launch market garden) Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt are united in the belief that that Germany must fall with no strings attached.
The repercussions that followed after WW1 means that Germany with be given no quarter or excuse to blame Jews, rebels or whoever for their downfall. The allies are fighting with a deep-rooted hatred. They are fighting an ideological war too and will not allow Rommel to come over to the allies now that Hitler has gone too far. Perhaps if he changed allegiance in North Africa things would have been different but too much water has passed under the bridge since then.
Rommel for his part has sent out feelers to the allies but his delegates allude to joining forces to defeat Hitler and then carrying on the fight to defeat Stalin too. Eisenhower cannot take them seriously. They are informed that Rommel must surrender unconditionally or face an allied assault in the west plus whatever Hitler can muster to throw at them.
The danger for Hitler is one of loyalty. He is still paranoid after his recent setbacks and the July 20th plot. He has long distrusted his generals and now Rommel is in open defiance and it is clear that the war is coming to its end-phase his surviving brass are either ‘yes’ men with little grasp of the complexities of modern warfare or generals who are very reluctant to attack Rommel and his rebel troops, especially as they are sympathetic to their cause.
The gas attack was never a popular decision, especially coming as it did so late in the war. Had gas been used earlier it would likely have been more widespread when the Germans were in pole position and feeling that it would win the war quicker. To use sarin now is merely prolonging the inevitable and the Germans know they will reap what they sow. (I think back to the Germans attempts to hide their genocide activities late in the war, when they knew the game was up)
Rommel is in a tight spot. He knows it is futile to fight on both fronts, but after defying Hitler his pride and his troops will not allow a simple capitulation. His only real hope is that a brave defence of Normandy will act as a beacon to other German units to join his cause, or at least offer no opposition.
The allies for their part are not prepared to wait it out. They are a mobile force and will not allow any Germans to dig in and prepare their positions. They want to capitalise on the element of surprise.
They decide to proceed with their original plan of attack.
Rommel squares up to them. There is nothing else for him to do. He needs to win this first encounter to hold up the allies initial thrusts, but more importantly to inspire those troops whose loyalties are unsure. He believes it inconceivable that another German army will attack his forces if they are heavily engaged with the ally forces in the west.
Free from Hitlers incessant meddling Rommel prepares to face the allies. At the back of his mind he has a faint idea that Hitler may even back down from open confrontation if he succeeds in the west.
Where it goes from here I’ll let you ponder... -
Message 33
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 18th January 2006
OK then,
The next phase.
As the Allies in the West begin preparations for an attack on Rommel's forces, we have two developments. Kesselring, way down south in Italy has been watching with great interest, basically sitting on the fence, waiting to see what would happen next. His intelligence officers have just informed him of the fate of the Jews, and more relevantly to his position, the fate of many captured Italians. He knows things will go badly for him, if the war is lost, as Rommel feels it is. His response is to withdraw his troops from Italy, and into southern France. He makes his decision, and the armies who had been fighting in Italy move North, to fight alongside Rommel's men. The army under Rommel's command is now up to one million men, with more defecting each day. The reality of the situation is beginning to get through.
Then, the next development. In a typical Rommel-style attack, he launches an armoured assault, while the US and British are preparing for their attack on him. He attacks at night, in order to negate allied air superiority, and basically, to cause chaos. Rommel's forces strike using only two Panzer divisions (Including Dietrich's SS division), and their aim is to simply hit hard, destroy as much materiel and equipment as possible, then withdraw.
The assault is launched two hours after dark, and spearheaded by the dreaded Tigers. They run headlong into Montgomery's famed Desert Rats, the 7th Armoured Division, armed with Shermans and Churchills. The result is basically Villers Bocage on a larger scale. The Tigers and Panthers simply pick off allied tanks in the darkness, and the battlefield is soon a littered with burning Shermans, living up to the gruesome nickname given them by the Germans, the Ronson.
The British are caught totally unprepared, and are basically lined up in rows, replenishing their fuel and ammo in preparation for the attack on Rommel's renegade army, and the Tigers plow through it with little resistance, targetting only tanks, and within minutes of the start of the attack, the battlefield is lit up by burning tanks. They push forward to within sight of the sea at Normandy, then begin to pull back. In their wake, the infantry follow in half-tracks, and as the Tigers and Panthers withdraw, the infantry go about their work. What is their work? Stealing fuel and weapons. A column of looted supplies heads back to Rommel's front line, leaving destruction in its wake. It is all over by 4AM. Rommel's raid has destroyed over 400 allied tanks, 200 aircraft parked up on an airfield which had the misfortune to be in the path of the raid, and over 300 trucks, full of supplies have been taken back to Rommel's lines. As his Panzers go under cover to avoid the Allies air power, Eisenhower is passed a message from his signals officers, received in plain text from the German lines, on a captured allied radio.
" For the Attention of the Supreme Commander, Allied Forces, We do not want to fight you, our fight is with Hitler, as is yours, but we will not allow you to attack us. If you will not let us join you, then we will fight Hitler alone, but you must not try to stop us. We must free Germany from Hitler and his criminals. We must destroy Hitler, and when Hitler is gone, only then can there be peace.
General-Feldmarschall Erwin Rommel
1st August 1944"
Back to you mate!
This one is turning into a book!! -
Message 34
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
This one is turning into a book!!
We may even get the royalties if they make it into a movie!!!
So, as Kesselring has joined up with our man Rommel things are taking shape. Hitler’s’ house of cards seems to be collapsing.
After their mauling at the hands of Rommels Tigers the Brits regroup and count their losses. Allied air superiority means that Rommel can never sustain his assault but his initial success has transformed his outlook, raised his status, bought his some time, raised moral and convinced those still sitting on the fence to throw their lot in with him.
In the west the Germans know that they have fought a dirty war. It is becoming more acceptable to question Hitler’s fuehrer status. Rumours have being circulating amongst front line troops about dark, evil deeds being perpetuated in vast concentration camps. It was easier to ignore such rumours earlier in the war but with their chickens coming home to roost many Germans are glad to have a man of Rommels stature to lead them instead of the increasingly laconic, paranoid, delusional Hitler who leads from afar.
Rommel and his ever-increasing army begins to flex its muscles. Their main worry is that Hitler will try to annihilate both the rebel Germans and the allies with a devastating sarin attack. Whilst the allies are regrouping Rommel decides that to fight the allies as well as Hitler’s forces is totally unfeasible. His only course of action is to take his forces back into Germany, take on Hitler in the fatherland and hope that Eisenhower will give him the space and time to do so. He now swings his army around and begins to move it east towards Germany. Instead of Monty breaking into Caen, Monty battered forces now finds themselves trying to prevent a German breakout. The troops caught on the hop by a heavy armoured force put up limited resistance as the Germans begin a withdrawal East.
This is a major turn of events and SHAEF are somewhat perplexed. Do they allow a strong German that seems to have developed a conscious to retreat back to Germany or should they try to destroy it en route and then tackle those forces loyal to Hitler.
Ultra intelligence has dried up, as the codes are considered unreliable by both Hitler’s forces and Rommels.
France is being liberated not by allied assault but by Rommel realising that his present position is untenable and his new fight with the nazi hierarchy.
His coup is turning into a revolution and Rommel is being portrayed as the man to save Germany from Hitler and his cronies. He follows up his initial statement to the allies with a decree to the German people and allies alike:
"It is not for honour nor riches, nor glory that we fight but for liberty alone, which no true man lays down except with his life." (borrowed from the declaration of Arbroath, 1320)
Political pressure forces Eisenhower to maintain an aggressive stance, but many of his forces are happy to let the Germans fight it out amongst themselves and are not too keen to intervene.
Subconsciously, at first allied targeting begins to shift to attacking those forces opposing Rommel. With allied air power concentrating on loyalists, Rommel’s forces begin to make some headway back to Germany where an unsure welcome awaits them. Allied bombing however also causes considerable disruption to Rommels rebels and their retreat is by no means easy as they move into the Ardennes. Bandit country.
With the allies breathing down their necks and strong loyalist forces at the border many of Rommels forces believe a fresh assault on the allies will help to convince them of the prudence of accepting some sort of limited truce.
I wonder what will happen next.... -
Message 35
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Off we go again!
Eisenhower has a major problem, he knows that Rommel's men are basically the cream of the Wehrmacht, and to fight them head on would be a very bloody battle. Rumours are reaching him that Rommel is actually planning to take his renegade army into Berlin, and take Hitler's government prisoner.
Now, to be seen to assist Rommel would be politically impossible, since the Russians would not have any of it. The policy of "the only good German is a dead German" is the one which reigns supreme in the east, and despite their massive losses through the German gas attacks, the Russians are starting to reinforce again. Eisenhower is left with only one possible course of action. To bomb the pro-Hitler German forces round the clock, and in this way ease Rommel's attack into Germany.
As this bombing intensifies, Rommel advances to the German border. Then, there is a bizarre turn of events. SOE operatives have been working in occupied France for years, and now they get their strangest orders yet. Many SOE agents are ordered to make their way to Rommel's forces, and hand themselves over. Several of them do not, but many of them obey the order, and off they go. Meantime, a parachute drop of several US and British officers is carried out close to Rommel's HQ, and the Allied Tactical Air Force, responsible for inflicting so much carnage in Normandy, shifts its area of operations south and east.
The SOE agents are sent their new orders. Since openly assisting Rommel in his attempt to overthrow Hitler is politically impossible, Eisenhower has decided to assist him covertly, through providing Forward Air Controllers, and tactical air support. The SOE agents are ordered to act as these air controllers, to co ordinate the allies air attacks on the Siegfried Line, and "assist" Rommel's breakthrough this way.
Rommel accepts the proposal immediately, since he does not want to be seen as fighting Germans with allied support either. For Rommel, he wants as many German units as possible to switch sides, so his plan is simple, but effective. No allied air raids are targetted on Rommel's men, but pro-Hitler forces are taking a hammering. Rommel adopts a very clever strategy. An air raid hits the Pro-Hitler troops, then his troops arrive to offer medical assistance, and help their comrades after they have been bombed. Instead of fight the pro-Hitler troops, let the allies bomb them, and then arrive and offer assistance.
The Defences of the Siegfried line are breached within days as this strategy takes effect, I mean, lets be honest, the pro-Hitler troops will not fire on medics coming to help their wounded.
As Rommel's troops edge through the Siegfried Line, and emerge into open country, the plan changes.
They form up into attack formations, and prepare for a Blitzkrieg assault right across Germany, and the autobahn to Berlin lies before them....
back to you! -
Message 36
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 27th January 2006
It was mustard gas and i think it was in naples harbour. but I cant remeber the name of the ship.
-
Message 37
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Y'know as I thought about this it made me think about how sucha revolution never happened. Hitler and his cronies were like a slow motion car crash. Even the most ardent of nazis must have realised this. It seems to me almost incomprehensible how some sort of revolution never seriously challenged Hitler once the worm started to turn and the nazi cronies chickenc cam ehome to roost.
With a Rommel army advancing onto German territory giving the German population a chance to shake off years of propaganda, tyranny and the humiliation of being humiliated as nazi's I think many ordinary German people and soldiers alike would turn to Rommel.
The fact that no such revolution took place I suppose can be put down to the terrible oppression of political opponents and fear of a visit from the gestapo. But even then with the world and its armies closing in on all sides no one managed a coup.
Going back to the original thread, perhaps the gas order would really have given the impetus for a man like Rommel to inspire his men to turn against Hitler, breaking their Fuhrer oath and wresting the fate of Germany back from the brink. -
Message 38
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
I think that basically, the Third Reich was all down to charisma. Hitler had this almost surreal hold over the Germans, and had it come to a military coup, then Rommel was the only General with the level of charisma and public appeal to even attempt to turn the German people from their path. I doubt anyone else could have managed it.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.