The Nuclear decision...what if?

[Civettone]

Ok...

So to go back to the original point. Could Germany have had a nuke? My answer is yes. Cancel the V 2 project and use a similar amount of resources, and given the fact that the Germans usually did more with less, I think they could have gotten an A-bomb.
Second, after a while they could have chosen to go along one path, either the enriched uranium bomb or the plutonium bomb instead of developing both like the Americans did!

And the world would have looked quite differently if they had a nuke.
Kris

 

[kjcarey2003]

I am not sure Hilter would have used a nuke even if he had one. He was weird about what he considered the rules of war. Didn't the German's have Sarin gas by that point? I don't think they ever used it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes the Germans had gas and they never used it. There are several theories about why he did not. One thought is because he was scared of it because of what he saw in WW1.

 

[Negative Creep]

I've always found that very odd. With all the atrocities that took place Hitler never employed chemical warfare, even at the end. If he had nuclear weapons I'm sure he would have used them, but only against the Russians. Even then, unless Stalin and the High Command were taken out, I doubt it would have stopped the Red Army by 44 or 45

 

[Marcel]

Yes the Germans had gas and they never used it. There are several theories about why he did not. One thought is because he was scared of it because of what he saw in WW1.

My history teacher told me that it was because of the fact that Hitler himself fell victim of gas of his own army in WWII that he didn't allow the use of it in WWII. Not sure if it's true.

 

[plan_D]

On "Chemical substances..."

"They suited the defenders to just about the same degree as the offensive, and so they cannot be counted as an exclusive asset of the offensive." - pg.129

Achtung-Panzer! - The Development of Tank Warfare - Heinz Guderian (1936).

 

[Aussie1001]

Hitler would not have used it..... hmmm i wonder.....
Back in thoes times no one could have concieved that an explosion of the size created by the first atomic bomb was even remotley concievieble with the amount of material used in the first A-Bomb.
another thing correct me if i'm wrong but plutonium is a by-product of uranium that has been processed in a reactor.

 

[Hop]

The main arguments against Germany using poison gas are:

a: the allies were far more capable of delivering gas attacks

b: the German army was largely horse drawn, whereas the allies relied on motor transport. Poison gas has no effect on a truck, but will kill a horse as easily as a man (and it's much harder to effectively protect horses than men)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The main arguments against Germany using poison gas are:

a: the allies were far more capable of delivering gas attacks

How were the allies far more capable of deploying it?

b: the German army was largely horse drawn, whereas the allies relied on motor transport. Poison gas has no effect on a truck, but will kill a horse as easily as a man (and it's much harder to effectively protect horses than men)

The German Army did use a vast amount of Horses but the fact that the majority of the Army was horse drawn is wrong and a myth.

 

[Negative Creep]

Surely by that logic Germany wouldn't have attacked the USSR because they had a bigger army? Also, far more use was made of horses in the 1st World War, but that wasn't taken into consideration by either side

 

[plan_D]

I would have thought that my quote would have explained why the Germans did not use gas in World War II. The German military saw no potential in the use of chemical warfare, it slowed the advance and the counter-measures available made it a pointless affair.

 

[Hop]

How were the allies far more capable of deploying it?

Air superiority. Artillery superiority. The German transport infrastructure was so degraded getting supplies to the front was difficult.

All this is later in the war, of course, but there wasn't much incentive for the Germans to use gas when they appeared to be winning.

The German Army did use a vast amount of Horses but the fact that the majority of the Army was horse drawn is wrong and a myth.

The German army had about 1 million horses by 1944. I believe the standard requirement for an infantry division was in excess of 4,000 horses.

Also, far more use was made of horses in the 1st World War, but that wasn't taken into consideration by either side

But that meant neither side gained a particular advantage or disadvantage. In WW2, with the Germans relying heavily on horses, and the western allies in particular not, gas would affect German logistics in a way it wouldn't affect the allies.

I would have thought that my quote would have explained why the Germans did not use gas in World War II. The German military saw no potential in the use of chemical warfare, it slowed the advance and the counter-measures available made it a pointless affair.

I certainly think that's true early in the war. When they were on the defensive gas would have had some advantages, though.

 

[evangilder]

I think a lot of the reasons to not use gas were based on personal experiences by Hitler and a lot of his general staff. Most of them were WWI vets and had experienced it in one way or another and knew the horrors of it. Plus, tactically, it is not of any real effective use because of safeguards having to be used for the ones using the gas. It slows everyone down and the civilians would be the ones who suffer the worst for it as they would have less adequate protection.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Air superiority. Artillery superiority. The German transport infrastructure was so degraded getting supplies to the front was difficult.

Allies certainly had air superiority but most gas would have been used by Artillary and Allied and German Artillary were about equal. Germany also could deploy there gas buy rockets.

I also dont think the Allies had a clear advantage of deploying it.

Now I agree for reasons stated by pB and the fact that Hitler recieved a dose of it in WW1 that Germany was not going to use Gas.

 

[Civettone]

The first to use gas has the advantage of surprise. It takes weeks to get sufficient numbers of gas masks to the troops. Of course every country had them in reserve but would still have had to distribute them and produce more.

But I see Germany having one occasion where it could have been important: the end of 1942 when they were laying siege on Leningrad and Stalingrad. A sudden mass use of these would have meant the defeat of the Russian armies there and the taking of these important cities. With Leningrad taken, the nothern front pretty much closes except for Murmansk which could be taken later. Stalingrad taken would improve chances of the Caucasus being taken. After that only Moscow and the Ural were left. 1943 would be another year of German advances. It would have lengthened the war.

Even though quite possible, it's not certain that using gas on the Russian front would have meant it would be used on the western front. There were quite different rules on both fronts in terms of humanity. The cruelty you saw on the Ostfront were lacking in France or Italy.

I am not sure Hilter would have used a nuke even if he had one. He was weird about what he considered the rules of war. Didn't the German's have Sarin gas by that point? I don't think they ever used it.

I don't doubt that Hitler would have used the bomb. You cannot compare it with gas on the battlefield. He repeatedly said he wanted London wiped off the face of the earth. No doubt he would have wanted a nuke. Biggest problem was that he was too dumb to understand the principle behind it and therefor lost interest in this superweapon. According to Speer.

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The first to use gas has the advantage of surprise. It takes weeks to get sufficient numbers of gas masks to the troops. Of course every country had them in reserve but would still have had to distribute them and produce more.

Depends on the country I guess. German soldiers had gasmasks on them most of the time anyhow. You probably have seen a pictures of them. They carry them in the metal cylinders. I have several of them at home complete with gas masks and all. Below is a picture of German soldiers with gas masks in case.

Picture taken from World War 2 Pictures In Color

 

[Civettone]

I'm gonna be honest. I didn't know they carried gas masks.

So those poor soldiers carried that stuff with them for 5 years without ever using it?
Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap better to be safe than sorry.
I have a few of them and in those metal cases they were rather heavy to be carrying around for a long time.

I am pretty sure that most nations carried there Gas Masks. It is part of standard military issue equipment. You carry it incase you need it. It is better to have it and not need it, then not have it and need it.

This has not changed today. We call it MOPP gear and it is carried for the posibility that it is needed.

 

[plan_D]

It was standard equipment in all World War II militaries; meaning that gas had no offensive or defensive potential. Hence the reason that Germany did not use it.

 

[Civettone]

But did they really carry it with them all the time? Or was it simply available at HQ? Just so difficult to imagine German soldiers fighting in the Ukraine, or fighting in North Africa with gas masks in their bags.

Kris