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.
Hitler's supposed horror of gas is not why it wasn't employed on the battlefields. The Nazis did use gas, they just limited their use to death camp people who could not retalitate. Against the people who could retaliate with their own gas, the Nazis refrained.
I wasn't defending Hitler or the people who brought you Zyklon B, I.G Farbin now Bayer. Sort of like how allied flyers POWs were treated well while RussianPOWs were worked to death. My point was that the Hitler and the Germans had conflicting ideas
Much of it was because there were very few fixed lines and trenches during World War II. Gas was used as an attempted stalemate buster, and none of the combating nations wanted to go through a prolonged stalemate again in WWII.
This came up on another thread in the P&OC forum... It's really a good question!
I can't really say I know why, but I'd be inclined to believe it just wasn't tactically useful in a fast-moving mechanized war. I don't really think a guy like Hitler would have banned chemical weapon use because of his WWI experiences if it would have made an difference in the outcome of the war, nor do I think we would have hesitated, especially considering how we used nuclear bombs without hesitation once we got them to work.
They didn't have the REALLY "effective" stuff like VX at the time, mustard gas gives low returns and Anthrax is easily countered with Penicillin. Nobody had particularly safe delivery system at the time either; chemical weapons would have been just as dangerous (if not more so) to the deploying units as their enemies.
Just when was penicillin introduced? From what I read it would be late in the war. An antrax bomb would have effected many even with it since I doubt they'd have a large enough supply to treat mass casualties. And true about the delivery system. They could only aim and hope. In a fast moving situation, it could end up hitting your own.
Just when was penicillin introduced? From what I read it would be late in the war. An antrax bomb would have effected many even with it since I doubt they'd have a large enough supply to treat mass casualties. And true about the delivery system. They could only aim and hope. In a fast moving situation, it could end up hitting your own.
The anti-bacterial effects of the penicillium mold were used in the Middle Ages, when moldy bread was used on suppurating wounds. Ancient folk cure.
The purified mold was developed by 1928, and was in use by 1941.
American penicillin mold used for large scale production came from one moldy cantaloupe, found in Peoria, that had a strain that was particularly pure. There were over 2 million doses ready for the D Day invasion.
Germany also had the drug, but had problems producing it in the quantities needed.
...snipped...The purified mold was developed by 1928, and was in use by 1941.
American penicillin mold used for large scale production came from one moldy cantaloupe, found in Peoria, that had a strain that was particularly pure. There were over 2 million doses ready for the D Day invasion.
I didn't know that. I will be off looking to read more on that. How interesting.
The anti-bacterial effects of the penicillium mold were used in the Middle Ages, when moldy bread was used on suppurating wounds. Ancient folk cure.
The purified mold was developed by 1928, and was in use by 1941.
American penicillin mold used for large scale production came from one moldy cantaloupe, found in Peoria, that had a strain that was particularly pure. There were over 2 million doses ready for the D Day invasion.
Germany also had the drug, but had problems producing it in the quantities needed.
The scary thing is today, with the overuse of anti-biotics, drug resistant strains of diseases don't need to be deliberately created. We're doing it by natural selection. Using germ warfare would be harder to stop today since if nature throws something up against us we can't treat, something designed to be worse wouldn't be hard. The only positive is that if you intend to deploy it widely in this world with the transission so fast, you better have something to keep you from catching it on the rebound too.
Well, I just think it was viewed as being somewhat ineffective and counter-productive to the blitzkreig strategy where you want to hit hard and push which is hard to do while pushing into a toxified area.
It may have been useful in places like Stalingrad.
The US could have used it in places like Iwo Jima especially heavy gasses that flow to low places but they must not have had it available. It's not like they wouldn't have used it as they routinely used flame throwers to suffocate the japanese etc. and in some cases poured fuel oil down into bunkers like in the Phillipeans and then just burned\suffocated all the japanese inside.
Then again, do you want to be carrying gas munitions on ships that are exposed to enemy fire?
Good post Grandstander. Hitler did not have a horror of gas.
On the contrary, Hitler was himself a gas casualty in WW1.
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.
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.
