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.
The experience of Chemical warfare in the 1st World war didn't do any thing but accelerate the development of vastly more powerful and deatly Chemical warfare agents. The post war period saw the invention of the G class nerve agents by I.G. Farben (Germany) (Agents Tabun, Somin and Sarin) and the much safer to store and handle binary nerve agents of which Vx was found by the British. The Vx agents were so toxic that a single micron sized droplet would destroy a soldiers nervous system. Chemical warfare before the advent of nuclear weapons was the gold standard for weapons of mass killing and if the V-1s and V-2 had been equipped with a halfway decent dispersal system could have killed vastly more Londoners than if a number of V-2s had put first generation atomic bombs on the target. What stoped this was we had a Mexican standoff and a gas attack on London would have been answered by a few Lancaster bombers dropping Vx loaded devices on Berlin. Millions more might have died as a result.
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
I. G. Farben was organized in the mid 1920s as part of an efforts save the German Chemical industry from going bankrupt in the ecomonic situation Weimar Germany plunged into. I.G consisted of essentailly all the giant German Chemical companies so it was more than just Bayer, but BASF, Hoechst, Agfa and more. I.G. was a major player in the United States being in the top 3 of American chemical companies. I.G. did business in the US until December 8, 1941 and after the war the Allies broke it up but divied up the former I.G. assetes to sucessor companies like Bayer, BASF, Agfa or Hoechst .
You might be able to classify the non-use of gas (between combatabts) as an early example of Mutually Assured Destruction, which was the theory during the Cold War. Neither side will be the first to use the weapons because the counter-strike would be so devastating.
You might be able to classify the non-use of gas (between combatabts) as an early example of Mutually Assured Destruction, which was the theory during the Cold War. Neither side will be the first to use the weapons because the counter-strike would be so devastating.
I phrased it earlier as MAI , Mutually Assured Inconvenience. Gas was not a war winning weapon in WW 1, it wasn't even a battle winning weapon.
AnnieA suggested it was revulsion at the horrible nature of the gas casualties which caused the ban. Others think that Hitler had an individual horror of gas and would not let his military use it because of that.
It really wasn't any of those things, those were "also there" factors but the bottom line was the futility of gas use.....we use it, then they will use it. We both use it and neither of us is winning the war with it, but we are both massively inconvenienced by having to protect ourselves against its possible use.
It was an extremely pragmatic decision...gas was a bad weapon not because it was immoral, rather because it was ineffective.
All the other horrors of war were allowed to remain intact. There was no international convention to ban flame throwers, was that supposedly a more moral and humane way to end someone's life than gas?
Finally, treaty or no treaty, if the Nazis had come up with the means to employ some poison gas on their opponents with no fear of retaliation, they certainly would have done so. These were not people filled with tender feelings for their perceived enemies. The Nazis abided by the agreement to not employ gas for one reason only....they had nothing to gain by it. Those idealism driven treaties of the 1920's turned out to mean nothing when fascist aggression appeared in the 1930's and '40's. The Kellog-Briand Pact was a 1928 agreement among its signers to renounce war as a means for settling international disputes. It was signed by, among others, Germany, the US , Great Britain, Italy and Japan.
The utter impracticality of such an agreement was established by the outbreak of WW II in Europe. No one seemed to have been restrained from going to war by their having signed it, just as no one would have been restrained from using gas, despite agreements not to, if there had been a practical reason for using gas.
Because all sides had it, neither side had anything practical to gain by using it.
Well, first off, not everyone kept their "finger off the button" in WW2. The Japanese used chemical weapons, including mustard gas against the Chinese. The primary reason being, it wasn't going to be used back against them as the Chinese didn't have chemical weapons. This is cited as the reason they never used them against the western powers, despite bringing them along when they swept through the Pacific and SE Asia. In addition to mustard gas, the Japanese also used the blister agent Lewisite. The Australians were so fearful of the Japanese using them against them that they covertly stockpiled over a million chemical weapons from Britain beginning in early 1942.
Ultimately, the reasons were already touched on the thread, primarily by GS. It had nothing to do with Hitler's experiences in WW1 or anything else. It was simply impractical as a battlefield weapon and it carried the threat of your enemy then using it against you. Overall, that was the real reason, anyone who used it knew that it was going to be used against them. If the Germans used chemcial weapons on London, the next flight over Berlin was guaranteed to be carrying them. The Germans were pretty well convinced that the US and Britain had developed the "next level" of chemical weapons; tabun, sarin and soman, just as the Germans had. This was ultimately their reason for not using them. The Germans also knew that the Soviets possessed the weapons as well, since the Germans had helped the Soviets develop their chemcial weapons program in the 1920's. The Soviets didn't use them for the same reason.
There was one major incident in Europe involving mustard gas. In December 1943 the Germans bombed the Italian port of Bari that was in allied hands. Among the ships destroyed was the SS John Harvey. That ship was carrying a covert load of mustard gas, that was being forward staged in case the Germans decided to use chemical weapons. The sulfur mustard spilled into the harbor and a cloud descended on the city and port facility. Around 69 US merchant seaman died from the mustard gas, plus another 14 military personnel and another 628 or so were sickened by it. There was also an unknown number of civilians who died from the gas. The biggest issue was that no one knew it was mustard gas as the port was run by the British and the US merchant captain was under strict orders not to reveal what his cargo was. The gas had been sent to Italy based on intelligence reports that Hitler was prepared to use chemical weapons against the Italians if they switched sides and against Allied troops, if the war turned bad.
There were also at least a couple of instances of the use of chemical weapons being considered or included in planning. When the British drew up the defensive plans for a possible German invasion of the Isles, they included preparations to use chemical weapons against the German troops. During the planning for the invasion of Japan, the US included the use of various chemical agents to drive the Japanese out of their bunker complexes. They concluded that Japan lacked any quantity of chemical weapons and delivery systems to respond to such an attack, so there was no retaliatory threat.
Well, first off, not everyone kept their "finger off the button" in WW2. The Japanese used chemical weapons, including mustard gas against the Chinese. The primary reason being, it wasn't going to be used back against them as the Chinese didn't have chemical weapons. This is cited as the reason they never used them against the western powers, despite bringing them along when they swept through the Pacific and SE Asia. In addition to mustard gas, the Japanese also used the blister agent Lewisite. The Australians were so fearful of the Japanese using them against them that they covertly stockpiled over a million chemical weapons from Britain beginning in early 1942.
Ultimately, the reasons were already touched on the thread, primarily by GS. It had nothing to do with Hitler's experiences in WW1 or anything else. It was simply impractical as a battlefield weapon and it carried the threat of your enemy then using it against you. Overall, that was the real reason, anyone who used it knew that it was going to be used against them. If the Germans used chemcial weapons on London, the next flight over Berlin was guaranteed to be carrying them. The Germans were pretty well convinced that the US and Britain had developed the "next level" of chemical weapons; tabun, sarin and soman, just as the Germans had. This was ultimately their reason for not using them. The Germans also knew that the Soviets possessed the weapons as well, since the Germans had helped the Soviets develop their chemcial weapons program in the 1920's. The Soviets didn't use them for the same reason.
There was one major incident in Europe involving mustard gas. In December 1943 the Germans bombed the Italian port of Bari that was in allied hands. Among the ships destroyed was the SS John Harvey. That ship was carrying a covert load of mustard gas, that was being forward staged in case the Germans decided to use chemical weapons. The sulfur mustard spilled into the harbor and a cloud descended on the city and port facility. Around 69 US merchant seaman died from the mustard gas, plus another 14 military personnel and another 628 or so were sickened by it. There was also an unknown number of civilians who died from the gas. The biggest issue was that no one knew it was mustard gas as the port was run by the British and the US merchant captain was under strict orders not to reveal what his cargo was. The gas had been sent to Italy based on intelligence reports that Hitler was prepared to use chemical weapons against the Italians if they switched sides and against Allied troops, if the war turned bad.
There were also at least a couple of instances of the use of chemical weapons being considered or included in planning. When the British drew up the defensive plans for a possible German invasion of the Isles, they included preparations to use chemical weapons against the German troops. During the planning for the invasion of Japan, the US included the use of various chemical agents to drive the Japanese out of their bunker complexes. They concluded that Japan lacked any quantity of chemical weapons and delivery systems to respond to such an attack, so there was no retaliatory threat.
Per that logic, why didn't we use them then on places like Iwo etc etc? My guess earlier in the thread was risk of accident like happened in Bari (above)...perhaps even the Bari incident? Perhaps the geography of some of the islands and the cave complexes?
Per that logic, why didn't we use them then on places like Iwo etc etc? My guess earlier in the thread was risk of accident like happened in Bari (above)...perhaps even the Bari incident? Perhaps the geography of some of the islands and the cave complexes?
This article has this exact question asked of two experts and they give their responses, which are quite interesting:
Basically, FDR said at the beginning of the war that the US would only use chemical weapons in a retaliatory fashion. The experiences in the Pacific in 1943 and 1944 les to some serious discussion about how effective it could be, but everytime it rose to the level of use it was vetoed by the President. The first open proposal was to use it at Iwo Jima, which was vetoed by FDR. It was then again strongly considered to be used during the invasion of Japan, but was vetoed by Truman in principle, while the plans were still carried forward to prepare for their use in case the Japanese did so first or the situation became desperate. There were a couple of other plans also considered. One involved using poison gas against isolated island garrisons where the island had no strategic military importance that would make it worth invading. Another proposal was to use chemical weapons to destroy the Japanese rice crop and force Japan into even more desperate starvation. This idea had traction since it was being used against plants, not people.
Basically, FDR said at the beginning of the war that the US would only use chemical weapons in a retaliatory fashion. The experiences in the Pacific in 1943 and 1944 les to some serious discussion about how effective it could be, but everytime it rose to the level of use it was vetoed by the President. The first open proposal was to use it at Iwo Jima, which was vetoed by FDR. It was then again strongly considered to be used during the invasion of Japan, but was vetoed by Truman in principle, while the plans were still carried forward to prepare for their use in case the Japanese did so first or the situation became desperate. There were a couple of other plans also considered. One involved using poison gas against isolated island garrisons where the island had no strategic military importance that would make it worth invading. Another proposal was to use chemical weapons to destroy the Japanese rice crop and force Japan into even more desperate starvation. This idea had traction since it was being used against plants, not people.
Thanks.
I can understand then how the use of the A-bomb was acceptable as it was afterall just a "big bomb" with the military being still very naive to the effects of radiation at that time as evidenced by even post-war test exposure to us service personnel.
The A-bomb later gained the stigma that chemical wheapons already had. That may actually be more due to the later power of the nukes making Hiroshima look like a bad grilling mishap by comparison.
I. G. Farben was organized in the mid 1920s as part of an effort to save the German chemical industry from going bankrupt in the economic situation Weimar Germany plunged into. I.G consisted of essentially all the giant German Chemical companies so it was more than just Bayer, but BASF, Hoechst, Agfa and more. I.G. was a major player in the United States being in the top 3 of American chemical companies. I.G. did business in the US until December 8, 1941 and after the war the Allies broke it up but divvied up the former I.G. assets to successor companies like Bayer, BASF, Agfa or Hoechst .
Many years ago, a friend loaned me a book titled "The Devil's Chemists: 24 Conspirators of the International Farben Cartel Who Manufacture Wars" by Josiah DuBois, published in 1952. DuBois served as a prosecutor at the war crimes trial of the twenty-four key directors of I.G. Farben which was held at Nuremberg between August 1947 and June 1948 by the U.S. military. The book covers not only the trial but also highlights the significance of I.G. Farben to the rise of the Third Reich and the German war effort as a whole, as well as the company's prewar connections to major corporations in the United States. Though long out of print, the entire text of the book can be found online in the form of a PDF file via the link provided below. I highly recommend it to anyone that may have an interest in the subject.
Many years ago, a friend loaned me a book titled "The Devil's Chemists: 24 Conspirators of the International Farben Cartel Who Manufacture Wars" by Josiah DuBois, published in 1952. DuBois served as a prosecutor at the war crimes trial of the twenty-four key directors of I.G. Farben which was held at Nuremberg between August 1947 and June 1948 by the U.S. military. The book covers not only the trial but also highlights the significance of I.G. Farben to the rise of the Third Reich and the German war effort as a whole, as well as the company's prewar connections to major corporations in the United States. Though long out of print, the entire text of the book can be found online in the form of a PDF file via the link provided below. I highly recommend it to anyone that may have an interest in the subject.
Tony, thanks for the link and info on the book. I had never heard of it, looks like a very interesting read.
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.
