# Why didn't Germany use chemical weapons? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 6, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208 "2013-09-06T21:47:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/21 "2013-09-08T01:03:10Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Yes, but that would have been medium range missiles and artillery against fixed position defenses in a total and nuclear war with basically no rules. Winner is the last irradiated man standing. Not necessarily; it seems to me that if you knew where enemy troop concentrations are, more or less, and you’re fighting a blitzkrieg-style war of maneuver, then hitting them with chemical weapons makes a lot of sense. The idea wouldn’t be to actually kill or soften them up for an attack, but rather to harass them and pin them and slow them down/reduce their effectiveness, while your armored forces go around them and get into their rear areas to tear up their logistics and communications. If you’re not planning on fighting them head on, using chemical weapons to mess them up seems like a reasonable idea. ---
**Author:** ![JustinC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justinc/32/8083_2.png) [@JustinC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustinC)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/22 "2013-09-08T19:42:38Z")
Britain did use _some_ chemical warfare; it was only [itching powder](http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SPY+SCRATCHER%3B+British+agents+taught+how+to+fight+dirty+with+itching...-a077649702), suitably applied in brothels that the German military would frequent. This tactic was included in ‘The Special Operations Executive (SOE): Lessons in Ungentlemanly Warfare, World War II’, set up by Winston Churchill shortly after he became Prime Minister in 1940. Predecessor Neville Chamberlain was criticised by MPs who claimed the Government “would rather lose the war than do anything unbecoming to an absolutely perfect gentleman”. So Churchill created the SOE with the aim of setting “Europe ablaze” with ungentlemanly conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/23 "2013-09-08T20:10:11Z")
They were under the impression that the Allies had discovered the nerve gases as well (quite wrong, we knew nothing about them). ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/24 "2013-09-08T21:10:55Z")
A quote from Albert Speer’s trial: \*MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And your reasons, I take it, were the same as the military’s, that is to say, it was certain Germany would get the worst of it if Germany started that kind of warfare: That is what was worrying the military, wasn’t it? SPEER: No, not only that. It was because at that stage of the war it was perfectly clear that under no circumstances should any international crimes be committed which could be held against the German people after they had lost the war. That was what decided the issue.\* From [here](http://www.historiography-project.com/clippings/1946/06/albert-speer-on-poison-gases.html). ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/25 "2013-09-08T22:07:39Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > A quote from Albert Speer’s trial: > > \*MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And your reasons, I take it, were the same as the military’s, that is to say, it was certain Germany would get the worst of it if Germany started that kind of warfare: That is what was worrying the military, wasn’t it? > > SPEER: No, not only that. It was because at that stage of the war it was perfectly clear that under no circumstances should any international crimes be committed which could be held against the German people after they had lost the war. That was what decided the issue.\* > > From [here](http://www.historiography-project.com/clippings/1946/06/albert-speer-on-poison-gases.html). So you (or Speer) are saying that the Nazis were very careful not to do anything that could be construed as being crimes against humanity, and that might be held against them if they lost the war. I see… :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/26 "2013-09-08T22:30:20Z")
Hey, I just report 'em. 😃 But what Speer might have been referencing was “the German people” as opposed to “the military” or “the Nazis” or “the political leadership.” ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/27 "2013-09-09T17:34:11Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > In static (trench) war, you know where the enemy is and it is a certainty that he’s going to be there an hour from now and a week from now. You can take the time to assemble your artillery and make a 50,000 round barrage over a limited area in order to saturate it and kill every living thing in that zone. > > Under the Blitzkrieg Strategy of WWII, you don’t have those numbers of troops massed in small areas for days and weeks at a time. Your men are planning to be 10-30 miles away tomorrow, and you’re certainly not betting on the enemy being anywhere near where he is today by the time tomorrow morning rolls around. Poison gas then becomes extremely ineffective and inefficient. Minor nitpick: The “front lines” of WW2 were not moving back and forth 10 to 30 miles per day, every day for 5-6 years. There were many places where advances were not made for weeks (and months), and the “lines” were static. ## The siege of Leningrad, for example, and Sevastopol. My ass-pulled guess is that chemical gas weapons weren’t perceived as all that effective, once the enemy has sufficient gas masks issued out (and properly used). It’s morale impact is much greater than it’s lethal effects might otherwise suggest they should be, granted. Also, chemical weapons don’t actually destroy the structures or equipment (like bunkers, radios, or artillery tubes) the enemy is using, so you might as well send over some HE if your going to all that trouble, anyway. However, one weapon class that did seem to be effective was of the incendiary/flambe’ kind: specifically [white phosphorus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus), and [napalm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm). But I don’t know if Germany had WP… and I’m reasonably sure they didn’t use napalm. ---
**Author:** ![Number](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/number/32/242_2.png) [@Number](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Number)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/28 "2013-09-10T02:44:16Z")
> [@Sauron](#): > > The Germans invented chemical weapons in World War II? > > Search for “mustard gas” and “World War I” on Google. What the OP was no doubt referring to is that Germans invented the first weaponized [nerve gases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_agent#History) in the late 1930s. That Wikipedia article has an informative quote from the book _The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben_. It supports the theory that Hitler wanted to use nerve agents, but was dissuaded because it was believed that the Allies could produce greater quantities of the same agents. The book _A Higher Form of Killing_ is a great (if grim) history of the subject. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/29 "2013-09-10T03:19:12Z")
Well as an interesting aside, the reason Hitler had the short mustache was so it would fit inside his gas mask. ---
**Author:** ![Shmendrik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shmendrik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shmendrik)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208/30 "2013-09-10T03:46:52Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > So you (or Speer) are saying that the Nazis were very careful not to do anything that could be construed as being crimes against humanity, and that might be held against them if they lost the war. I see… :dubious: Although Speer did a very good job dissembling at Nuremberg, that particular statement seems plausible. In fact, the SS went to great lengths towards the end of the war to destroy evidence of atrocities they’d committed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-germany-use-chemical-weapons/668208.md?page=1)