Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Hitler and poisonous gas.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by nastychestycough (U13796779) on Wednesday, 29th July 2009
In 1944-45 when the war was obviously being lost, Hitler, who had given directives that Germany was to be reduced to a complete wasteland anyway, never used poisonous or chemical weapons against his enemies. Why?
-
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 29th July 2009
Simple. M A D Both sides had nasty stuff, and didn't use it because it would have led to the other side using it.
-
Message 3
Posted by nastychestycough (U13796779) on Wednesday, 29th July 2009
But Hitler at this point wanted Germany destroyed.
-
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 29th July 2009
Before saying so, go back 10 years earlier and question yourself where Hitler found the money to do what he did. The fact that he did not use chemicals is a tiny little pointless detail that will not aid you at all in understanding the games played behind the scenes.
How about his attack in Russia? What was the point? He had 800,000 lazy sons of aristocrats having fun in France and still they could hold on against the millions of American and British and ANZAC and other allies for a reasonable time while he had already spent his 2,500,000 best soldiers (Germans and their allies) with their best stuff against Russians. Even a 5 years old nursery chief would have simply kept a minimum 500,000 on the Russian-German frontier, then send the rest 2 million swimming to Britain to finish off with western Europe and then concentrate to the next step... how much would you give Britain? 1 month? 2 months? 3 months?...
See how simple are things? Put it to your mind. That was a controlled war, fully designed from the very beginning to the very end, just like the WWI. There was someone paying behind and at the end (of the 4 years, a typical financial circle anyway!), he wanted his share! Fair enough! -
Message 5
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 30th July 2009
The original question is a good one. I suspect we will never know for sure why Hitler did not order gas attacks.
The answer that the enemy would retaliate in kind holds for the start of the war.
I suspect that, by war's end, he might have realised that he would have been dis-obeyed.
Remember, even his order to destroy facories as the enemy advanced were ignored. -
Message 6
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 30th July 2009
Your 2 million troops would have to be able to swim the channel.
The germans had neither the ships nor in the end, the airplanes to obtain even temporary control of the channel.
Unless you take a break of three years while you build a fleet of landing craft, rather then rhine barges, and the destroyer/ cruisers and mine sweepers to escort them, all the german army can do is sit on the beach at calais and collect sea shells. -
Message 7
Posted by Old Hermit (U2900766) on Thursday, 30th July 2009
Didn't war games carried out with the likely German Commanders (who were still alive) of Sealion at Sandhurst prove that the British response would have actually stopped the Nazis even if they had landed?
-
Message 8
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 30th July 2009
hi nick
think u have missed the point a tad
the whole reason behind WW" was lebensraum - living space - for the german folk
this was to be found in the East - it wlways was the purpose of the war
britain was toothless and useless after Dunkirk - maybe he thought we would come to a negocietd peace - no matter - we could hardly have caused him a problem - we we locked up in our little ilsalnd and had no chance of re-entering the fray
there was no way we could have invaded europe - at best we could raise 50 divisions (our max of the whole war i believe) he had already spanked us - and the real war was yet to come - ie Barbarossa
at that time the usa was a neutral - who could even dream about pearl harbour
why he never use gas i still cant understand - he really didnt care about the suffering of his own people else he would have surrended to save them from the horrors yet to come - esp berlin
how did he not use in when he was in the bunker ?? did he care that it would be used against his people - a definite NO
he knew he was going to take the cowards way out - why not in a huge blaze of glory ??
st
wh -
Message 9
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 2nd August 2009
I thought I had always read that it is believed he thought the Allies had developed even nastier CW than those the Germans had.
-
Message 10
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 2nd August 2009
In 1944-45 when the war was obviously being lost, Hitler, who had given directives that Germany was to be reduced to a complete wasteland anyway, never used poisonous or chemical weapons against his enemies. Why? Β
The simplest explanation I can give is that having been gassed by chlorine on the western front in WW1 Adolf Hitler (to be fair) didn't want to do it.
AA. -
Message 11
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 3rd August 2009
Arnald,
On that basis, you would have thought that he would avoid war entirely. No, that does not work for me as a reason either. -
Message 12
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 3rd August 2009
Hi Salti,
as I understand it the process for making the fist nerve gases is fairly simple. you need a factory that makes pesticides and, depending on the gas required either cut out or add a process. Thats it. As I recall from i think a book called "A higher form of killing" a history of chemical warfare. The germans looked at the process, looked at ICI and decided that as the process was so simple there was no way that the British didnt have nerve gases of their own and given the size of the UK chemical industry was likley to have massive stocks in reserve.
So they decided that they wouldnt be the ones to use them first.
The other factor is that while the gases existed i dont think the antidotes or protective equipment did. The germans had enough problems with the shortages of rubber without having to make several million noddy suits on top of their other comitments. -
Message 13
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 5th August 2009
TimTrack,
You have missed my point, it is not a problem.
I was using sarcasm, irony and understatement in my post.
So, so you don't misunderstand, Adolph Hitler (in my view) was in the top three of the "Most Evil" to use a Discovery Channel phrase.
Yet, he, (Adolph) didn't use Chemical Warfare, and he could have.
So, why didn't he (Adolph) use chemicals?
It remains the best explanation I've found that AH didn't go down the road of chemical warfare as he was gassed by Chlorine in WW1.
As an aside have you been gassed by chlorine, it is not pleasant.
AA. -
Message 14
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 5th August 2009
bttdp,
I've been here before and argued.
Nice to see you here though.
AA. Your original heretic and supporter of the Cathars. -
Message 15
Posted by TerribleTomas (U1765869) on Tuesday, 11th August 2009
this one has always had me wondering too! Think it raises just as many what if questions.
Germany had the stuff Tabun and Sarin and Soman in development. Did they have effective means of delivering it and sufficient protection for their own troops while they mopped up? Would the commanders on the ground have followed orders to deploy it, Was it readily accessible when everything was falling around their ears towards the end? -
Message 16
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
From one TT to another....
I think that delivering poison gas would have been quite easy. In WW1 it was released from 'smoke pots' and fired from cannon shells. Both of these methods could have been used in WW2.
But it would probably be more effective dropped from aircraft. That way the aircraft could penetrate further away from German lines, so the wind would not blow it back.
Conventional bombs easily adapted. -
Message 17
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
hi dan
nice to see u again
take all that u say and agree
the thing is that the dwarf was sitting underground in safety
he refused to let the people of berlin evacuate the city to safe positions
he refused to let german divisions surrender to the west
everyone had to fight to the death (apart from him of course)
the day before he decided to take the cowards way out - why did he not decide everyone should die - undo the valves we are all gonna snuff it ??
didnt matter theirs were better than ours ??
surely common decency didnt exist
st -
Message 18
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
HiSalti, In serious opinion he forgot he had them. he was a busy bunny in those last days, what with organising a suicide and a wedding. I seriously think he just forgot he had them.
-
Message 19
Posted by MartLangers (U14130162) on Tuesday, 8th September 2009
It sounds very simplistic and almost absurd, but I think the hole truth around why AH did not use Gas during WW2 was because it is a complicated and unstable way of dealing with your enemy.
When you have the resources of the Lufftwaffe, Panzer divisons and the some of the latest killing equipment why try and use gas that is just too unreliable and unpredictable.
Also like someone has already mentioned, Hitler’s vision was Lebensraum, Gas saturates and contaminates the area it has been exposed to. This was a tactic used on Artillery Poisons in the First World War.
Just a thought. -
Message 20
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 8th September 2009
I'm no apologist for Hitler, but the suggestion he was in some way cowardly is frankly ludicrous. He was awarded the Iron Cross for bravery on the Western Front, and there are many of his fellow soldiers on record attesting to his bravery, even though he was not generally well-liked. I think anyone with half a brain cell would have done just as he did in the bunker, given the unsalvageable situation.
-
Message 21
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Tuesday, 8th September 2009
Coming back to the original question, is it not the case that he was developing atomic weapons (the Allies famously destroyed his installation quite late in the war). So wouldn't he have laid off chemicals believing he had something better?
-
Message 22
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 8th September 2009
He was a long way off, apparently. Heisenberg later claimed he had deliberately put the programme off course, though many didn't (and still don't) believe him. It seems, in fact, he made some basic errors in his calculations, and only realised it when he heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (by which time he was in British hands, his conversations with fellow physicists being bugged). But yes, the allies did destroy the heavy-water plant in Norway in early 1943. It has been shown it was producing nowhere near enough heavy water for plutonium production on a serious scale; only enough for small-scale research.
I gather Hitler was always a bit skeptical about atomic weapons, putting more faith (not to mention investment) in von Braun's V2 rocket programme.
According to the wikipedia article on the V2, there were plans afoot to deliver nerve gases via V2, though these were never put into effect. -
Message 23
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 9th September 2009
If Hitler was serious about winning the war (and using the Western bank of the Volga as the Reich frontier then he'd have armed up as many He111's the Luftwaffe had and then dumped as mucu Sarin etc. on the Russian "forming up areas" on the Volga's East bank and then sent in the remaining bombers to pummel the "near Eastern" banks.
Three intense layers of destruction to keep the Sovs busy - and I don't think the Western Allies would have cared too much to use CW against the German's just because it was used on the Sovs. -
Message 24
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 9th September 2009
"...If Hitler was serious about winning the war..."
Oh yes. You have it. Hitler just was not serious.
"...I don't think the Western Allies would have cared too much to use CW against the German's just because it was used on the Sovs..."
And I am equally certain that they would have cared a great deal. -
Message 25
Posted by nastychestycough (U13796779) on Wednesday, 9th September 2009
A thought just occured to me -
Albert Speer writes in his memoirs that towards the end he was contemplating using gas to kill Hitler in his Bunker, he was going to utilise some sort of vent.
Now my memory may be failing, but I think Speer wrote that he had a great deal of difficulty in getting his hands on any gas ( I may be wrong here) and pretty soon the vent had been closed off.
If the Minister for armaments couldn't get hold of any maybe the Germans simPly didn't have any? -
Message 26
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Thursday, 10th September 2009
"And I am equally certain that they would have cared a great deal."
In 1942 as the Sovs are getting hit by CW's on the Volga, where wouyld the allies have directed their CW strike in the West?
Either the Ruhr I suppose or on Berlin?
I think the problem would then be the fact the Sovs alsways considered moving away from the Volga whereas we always knew we'd be advancing toward Berlin - imagine if the West had hammered Berlin with CW's then the only way was downhill - at least confined to the Volga the only people that were going to be hurt were fulltime combattants. A sorry truth IMO. -
Message 27
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 10th September 2009
the fact the Sovs alsways considered moving away from the Volga whereas we always knew we'd be advancing toward Berlin - imagine if the West had hammered Berlin with CW's then the only way was downhill - at least confined to the Volga the only people that were going to be hurt were fulltime combattantsΒ I'm not sure I understand the point.
-
Message 28
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Thursday, 10th September 2009
Sorry I meant it insofar as the Sovs accepted fact that Stalingrad was pummeled to the ground - Im sure Stalin if the Germans had used CW's against the city, rendering it uninhabitable would have just rebuildt a VOlga city somewhere else (think mMagnitogorsk-esque!) BUT I don't think the Western Allies would have liked to have conquored Germany after using CW's to have to do what they'd then have to have done (not withstanding the bombing of Germany) - and still in 1942 (using Stalingrad as the time Germany used CW's) there was still a chance the Allies might have lost.
-
Message 29
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 10th September 2009
GFR Sovs accepted fact that Stalingrad was pummeled to the ground - Im sure Stalin if the Germans had used CW's against the city, rendering it uninhabitable would have just rebuildt a VOlga city somewhere else (think mMagnitogorsk-esque!Β I think - given the lack of self-restrained showed by all the major parties to WWII - the only plausible explanation for not using chemical weapons was its expected ineffectiveness from military stand point, for whatever reason - be it the lack of delivery capabilities or else. It certainly does not strike me as any more horrific than mass extermination of civilians, or carpet bombing of major population centers, or all other niceties conducted during those memorable years.
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 Β 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.