U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2019, 12:17 PM
 
3,139 posts, read 1,560,172 times
Reputation: 3370

Advertisements

So they simply didn't use it against soldiers because they feared what the allies might have for chemical warfare?

Basically today's nuclear scenario?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2019, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
38,358 posts, read 17,887,761 times
Reputation: 17541
Quote:
Originally Posted by madison999 View Post
So they simply didn't use it against soldiers because they feared what the allies might have for chemical warfare?

Basically today's nuclear scenario?
Gas wasn't used during WW II, but it wasn't because of moral grounds. It was a matter of convenience. Gas was horrible, but it didn't prove to be a war winning weapon in WW I, and since both sides had it, even if it had been a war winning weapon, the benefit is canceled.

If one side had used gas during WW II, then the other side would have responded in kind, no advantage gained for either side. And if gas was used, the soldiers would have had to fight while wearing bulky protection equipment. This meant that if you used gas, you weren't helping your side win, you were just arranging things so that everyone would have to don the protective gear. There just wasn't any point to doing that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:12 PM
 
189 posts, read 33,901 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by madison999 View Post
Re chemical warfare

Did Hitler think introducing it would lead to a defeat? I mean he was Hitler. What does he care how he kills people as long as Germany wins?
It is not known why Hitler did not (in general*) order the use of chemical weapons during the war. Theories abound. There are pop psychology assertions to the effect that Hitler, having been temporarily blinded as a soldier during a gas attack in World War I, could not bring himself to do the same to other soldiers. Besides the fact that there's no actual evidence that he acted for that reason, the idea that Hitler was unwilling to inflict a certain unpleasant fate on soldiers is, shall we say, rather incredible, given his track record. It is possible he felt that their use offered no strategic advantage, though his well-established fixation with 'vengeance' against enemy people and forces makes it all seem a bit odd - Hitler repeatedly prioritize slaking his desire for retribution over more useful tactical and strategic options. It has also been noted that the Wehrmacht's heavy reliance on horses in transportation made them particularly vulnerable versus the western Allies to a war where gas was introduced. Gas masks for horses did exist, but those only suffice for nerve and blood agents, which must be inhaled to be effective. Blister agents, on the other hand, need only come into contact with the skin to debilitate personnel (whether two-legged or four-legged).

As for D-Day, chemical weapons would have been useless due to the weather. Wind and rain are the enemy of chemical munitions. Ideal conditions are the temperature inversion that often occurs right before dawn, where the aerosolized chemical vapors hang around and settle into lower areas such as trenches and hollows - places soldiers take cover. But a windy, rainy beach? The chemicals would be dispersed almost immediately to little effect.

* - There were a few isolated instances of the use of chemical weapons by German forces in the East.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:20 PM
Status: "57 days till camping season..." (set 7 hours ago)
 
5,327 posts, read 3,095,635 times
Reputation: 2043
Quote:
Originally Posted by madison999 View Post
I'm not a science guy. But they had time to build along the beaches.

Could they have built generators or something that would have electrified the water and electrocuted the soldiers as they got out?

Was there ever an instance of doing something like this in battle?

Saddam Hussein did in the marshes during the Iranian war fried thousands then used their bodies to make a road thru the swamp for his tanks ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:09 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
3,618 posts, read 1,518,428 times
Reputation: 3222
never mind
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:26 PM
 
42 posts, read 654 times
Reputation: 26
Yes, they could have killed a few fish!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top