Had Hitler used chemical weapons would that have helped the Nazis much?
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.
Actually the primary impetus for building the bomb was the fear that Germany would build one first. When the Manhattan Project was launched they did not know how destructive of a bomb could be made, they didn't yet know if it was even possible to achieve critical mass or control it if they did. What they did know was that if it was possible, this was going to be the next generation of determining a nation's military might, and that if they were not the first to gain that status, it might not be possible to play catch up with a Germany that did.
I doubt we'd have dropped it, though, for fear of destroying other European nations.
I doubt we'd have dropped it, though, for fear of destroying other European nations.
That will come as news to Monte Cassino, Dresden, Berlin, Cologne, Kessel, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Swinoujscie, and Hamburg, and that's just a list of cities destroyed by the western Allies as a result of bombing raids. That list as incomplete as it is, doesn't include European cities destroyed as the result of ground combat.
So to repeat, THE purpose of he Manhattan Project was to develop the atomic bomb was to use it against Germany.
That will come as news to Monte Cassino, Dresden, Berlin, Cologne, Kessel, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Swinoujscie, and Hamburg, and that's just a list of cities destroyed by the western Allies as a result of bombing raids. That list as incomplete as it is, doesn't include European cities destroyed as the result of ground combat.
So to repeat, THE purpose of he Manhattan Project was to develop the atomic bomb was to use it against Germany.
Atom bombs were different, as we were not truly sure the damage would end at the bombing site.
Atom bombs were different, as we were not truly sure the damage would end at the bombing site.
Really?
The only difference was that one atomic bomb aboard a single B-29 replaced 334 armed with conventional - if one could call incendiary bombs as being conventional - weapons.
I also hasten to add that following the first test, there was little doubt amongst those involved in the Manhattan Project as to what the bomb was capable of doing.
Now if you would like to argue the history rather than your wishful thinking we might have something to discuss.
For all the evil he did, one thing he would not allow is the use of chemical weapons against his enemies. I have heard it was due to his personal experience with it in WWI. My question is, had he freely used them do you think it would have helped the Nazis much in the long run? Could D-Day still be pulled off had they used them freely on the advancing allies? What if he had used them against the Russians?
Chemical weapons are actually not very effective in warfare. Here are a couple good articles:
every side had chemical weapons and if one side used it they all would have. The country most likely to have used it was England because Churchill planed to use chemical weapons if D-Day invasion failed.
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.