What Kept Everybody's Finger Off the Poison Gas Button During WW2? (1930's, Chinese)
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.
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 like your answer Mathguy. It's hard to see the past without the knowledge (or lack thereof) and prejudices of the present.
Didn't Truman say in an interview or his memiors that he had no problem giving the order to drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he considered the weapons just "bigger bombs"?
Didn't Truman say in an interview or his memiors that he had no problem giving the order to drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he considered the weapons just "bigger bombs"?
Pretty much. The scientists involved and the military had very little understanding of the longterm effects of fallout and radioactivity. There are some documents the surfaced about using the bomb prior to a US invasion of Japan. In them the scientists assure the military that troops could safely enter the areas where the bombs went off within 24-48 hours without risking injury through exposure.
Pretty much. The scientists involved and the military had very little understanding of the longterm effects of fallout and radioactivity. There are some documents the surfaced about using the bomb prior to a US invasion of Japan. In them the scientists assure the military that troops could safely enter the areas where the bombs went off within 24-48 hours without risking injury through exposure.
A friend in highschool shared her fathers story. He was one of the men on the trucks who toured the blast site the next day. He was horrified and stayed on the truck. But one of his friends was among those who disobeyed orders and picked up a shiny glass souviner.
He had it in his pocket for a while, and then put it in his locker. When he got sick shortly after he didn't tell them about his memento for a while. When he did they tested the bank of metal lockers and ended up lowering them into the ocean in a concrete slab they were so raidoactive. It wasn't until personal incidents, shortly after, started being recorded that they realized they'd created a poisoned wasteland.
There were sufficient static situations, especially in the prolonged sieges such as Leningrad, Stalingrad, Tobruk or Caen, where your above mitigation would not apply. Gas was not employed in any of these cases, so I think you are providing just a partial explanation.
Just re-visited this thread...
one of the lessons of gas used in trench warfare was that gas is equally deadly to both sides in close conflict. Gas shifts with every little gust of breeze. It's the ultimate deadly blowback.
All those prolonged sieges you mentioned were either close combat within the besieged area or were constantly shifting back and forth. Gas would have killed the Germans in equal numbers to the Russians in Stalingrad and Leningrad, where much of the fighting was at very close range.
Gas was also dangerous to transport in fast convoys. In addition, the cargo weight and space was better needed for traditional ammunitions and food and medical supplies over those long roads over the Russian steppes. if a truck carrying gas blew up after an aircraft attack, it could do massive damage to a bogged-down convoy.
All those prolonged sieges you mentioned were either close combat within the besieged area or were constantly shifting back and forth. Gas would have killed the Germans in equal numbers to the Russians in Stalingrad and Leningrad, where much of the fighting was at very close range.
.
You are in error with the above. The close range fighting you speak of applied, and only for part of the time, to the siege of Stalingrad. In the other three situations, there were clearly defined lines and plenty of room to pump gas shells into the enemy positions with no danger to themselves.
To wit:
Siege of Leningrad.
This was a static situation for 900 days with lines remaining intact.
In the case of the siege of Tobruk, the area controlled by the British was twenty miles wide by ten miles deep, plenty of room for employing gas without the Germans killing themselves.
Same deal with the siege of Caen, this map shows that there would have been no problem gassing the Germans had the Brits wished to do so.
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?
There is another problem with chemical warfare: Secondary contamination. Sure, we could have tossed mustard gas, nerve agents, etc down caves where Japanese Soldiers were. Then what? You still have to go in there and clear out the caves. Wearing chemical agent suits and committing to combat operations is VERY DIFFICULT (not that they had MOPP gear in WWII) but even just gas masks, etc its difficult to do.
Not too mention, as I said the secondary contamination of your own troops. SOMEONE had to go in there and clear those places. You going to volunteer? Are you going to order someone down there? What if they died or were seriously comprimised by the agent during the operation?
Now a bigger question comes into play: Define gas? Is CS/CN considered gas too you? I cannot be 100% positive, however I do believe it was used to some extent, in clearing out Japanese strong holds. However, CS/CN isn't going to kill you.
There is another problem with chemical warfare: Secondary contamination. Sure, we could have tossed mustard gas, nerve agents, etc down caves where Japanese Soldiers were. Then what? You still have to go in there and clear out the caves. Wearing chemical agent suits and committing to combat operations is VERY DIFFICULT (not that they had MOPP gear in WWII) but even just gas masks, etc its difficult to do.
This is a very pertinent and often overlooked point. In WWII, battles were fought for objectives rather than attrition. The Germans didn't so much want to kill British in Tobruk as they wanted the use of Tobruk's facilities. And those would be unusable - within a tactical timeframe, at least - if chemical agents were used.
That does not explain why strategic attacks didn't employ chemical weapons. Bombing raids to hit railroad nexuses, for instance, were carried out with no thought for saving the facilities for later use. Plastering them with a persistent nerve agent after they were bombed would have denied repair crews access for a long time.
Yet, I am unaware of any development of chemical bombs for strategic bombing. Which might simply have been why none were used - Bomber Command did what they could with what they had, and had a hard enough time putting HE on target as it was.
Damn, I feel like cold-hearted b.stard even speculating.
This is a very pertinent and often overlooked point. In WWII, battles were fought for objectives rather than attrition. The Germans didn't so much want to kill British in Tobruk as they wanted the use of Tobruk's facilities. And those would be unusable - within a tactical timeframe, at least - if chemical agents were used.
That does not explain why strategic attacks didn't employ chemical weapons. Bombing raids to hit railroad nexuses, for instance, were carried out with no thought for saving the facilities for later use. Plastering them with a persistent nerve agent after they were bombed would have denied repair crews access for a long time.
Yet, I am unaware of any development of chemical bombs for strategic bombing. Which might simply have been why none were used - Bomber Command did what they could with what they had, and had a hard enough time putting HE on target as it was.
Damn, I feel like cold-hearted b.stard even speculating.
This point was discussed extensively in previous posts. Essentially it came down to an early form of "MAD" Mutual Assured Destruction. Since all sides had the weapons and the Germans believed the Allies to have developed the second generation forms that they possessed, any use would have resulted in an immediate response by the other side. Chemical weapons in London meant Berlin was next and vice versa. The Germans even resisted using them against the Soviets for the same reasons and vice versa there as well. Chemical weapons carried a heavy stigma and anyone who chose to use them would need to accept the fact that they would then be used on them. If the Germans started dropping chemical weapons in Russia, the next flight of Lancasters would probably be dropping them on Germany. The fact that civilian populations were so vulnerable on both sides made it an unthinkable choice.
Even then though, as illustrated and detailed earlier, the Allies, especially the US certainly considered using and even deployed chemical weapons to combat theaters. Ultimately what stopped their use was the upfront statement by FDR at the beginning of the war that the US would only use such weapons in the event they were used on us first.
This point was discussed extensively in previous posts. Essentially it came down to an early form of "MAD" Mutual Assured Destruction. Since all sides had the weapons and the Germans believed the Allies to have developed the second generation forms that they possessed, any use would have resulted in an immediate response by the other side. Chemical weapons in London meant Berlin was next and vice versa.
Well, yes, but... The Germans didn't really have a strategic retaliation option for the latter part of the war, whereas the Allies did. I suppose V-2s with chemical warheads could have been a possibility, but how else would they hit London?
As has been said, probably a too-high political cost. Which is saying something, considering what both sides were in fact willing to do.
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.
That may actually be more due to the later power of the nukes making Hiroshima look like a bad grilling mishap by comparison.
