Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

WW2 Chemical Weapons?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Victor Charlie (U3947299) on Thursday, 11th May 2006

  In the war on the eastern front, why didn't Germany use chemical weapons to kill vast numbers of soviet troops? Surely the use of chemical shells instead of HE shells on cities would have been much moe useful. Also chemical weapons could be dropped from aircraft causing even more damage.
  
  Would Stalingrad have been different if such weapons were used?

  Link to this forum: WW2 Chemical Weapons?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by folgore (U3957252) on Thursday, 11th May 2006

  they probably knew that britain still held large stocks of chemical weapons .Churhill had ordered there use to defend britain in the case of invasion . if germany had used them the allies would surely retaliate as in world war 1 .

  Link to this forum: WW2 Chemical Weapons?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Victor Charlie (U3947299) on Friday, 12th May 2006

  Surely using the weapons on Russia wouldn't effect what happens between in the war in the west? Did Germany not use such weapons because it didn't want the Russians to start using them?
  
  I don't quite understand why the Nazis didn't use such weapons. I thought they are really effective?

  Link to this forum: WW2 Chemical Weapons?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Friday, 12th May 2006

  Fear of reprisal? I believe that Russian's used to crucify captured German flame-thrower operators as they considered the weapon barbaric. One can only assume that if the German's had used chemical weapons it might have led to a "take no prisoners" attitude, which would have had serious implicaitons for the Germans.
  
  Other than that, would the weather conditions have had an effect on chemical weapons?

  Link to this forum: WW2 Chemical Weapons?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by MB (U177470) on Friday, 12th May 2006

  Possibly not confident in their own chemical protection equipment? It is a very unpredicable weapon and a slight change in wind direction can send the gas back towards your own side.
  
  Perhaps uncertainity about what chemical weapons that the Russians had developed.
  
  MB

  Link to this forum: WW2 Chemical Weapons?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 12th May 2006

  In the first summer of the war they didnt need to they were making enough progress.
  
  During the first winter when chemical weapons would have been needed the tempratures in russia whould have prevented them from being effective, freezing the gases in a liquid state so reducing the gases effectiveness.
  
  As to why they wernt used afterwards in the following summer I dont know perhaps it was fear of the allies replying in kind?

  Link to this forum: WW2 Chemical Weapons?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Friday, 12th May 2006

  Retaliation wasn't just a possibility but a certainty. I have seen claims that the US even moved chemical weapons to the European theatre and was therefore clearly prepared to use them.
  
  There can be no doubt that Stalin would have hesitated to reply in kind. Also, German intelligience thought chemical weapon developement was more advanced in the west than it was. Germany actually was way ahead of the game, having developed and produced nerve agents. They could find no publication of research in this area by their enemies and assumed therefore that they west had developed these agents in secret weapon programs and were prepared to retailiate--actually we would have been limited to older agents such as mustard. The allies did not discover nerve agents until their discovery in german artillery shells after the war.
  
  Sun Tzu was right. Good spies are worth more than ten armys.
  
  Kurt

  Link to this forum: WW2 Chemical Weapons?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Victor Charlie (U3947299) on Friday, 12th May 2006

  Thanks KurtBronson
  
  

  Link to this forum: WW2 Chemical Weapons?

  Report message8

Back to top