Hitler and using gas in WW2

[MG1962]

I have heard it mentioned in a few places that Hitler actively opposed the deployment of gas in WW2. Has anyone read specific reasons for this, ie his WW1 experiences, worries of the effect on his own troops, or something else again.

Given the monster he was, assuming it is true, it is an interesting facet of his personality.

[TX50]

Fear of reprisals? The USA and USSR had big stockpiles.
Difficulty in delivering them?
Because chemical weapons aren't really all that militarily effective?

[MG1962]

Fear of reprisals? The USA and USSR had big stockpiles.
Difficulty in delivering them?
Because chemical weapons aren't really all that militarily effective?

So you are suggesting it was more likely tactical than emotional?

[shadron]

I would imagine that his general staff was probably scared stiff of using it, considering the reprisals and the inability to effectively control it, as demonstrated in WWI.

[plumjam]

From memory it was due to his experiences of its effects in WW1. I have also a vague recollection that he considered it a cowardly way to wage war.

When Germany surrendered in 1918, Hitler was lying wounded and temporarily blinded by gas.
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/hitler.html
I think this was lying wounded in a hospital.

[MG1962]

From memory it was due to his experiences of its effects in WW1. I have also a vague recollection that he considered it a cowardly way to wage war.


http://www.historyguide.org/europe/hitler.html
I think this was lying wounded in a hospital.

Thanks for that. I was unaware he'd been injured during a gas attack

[Pope130]

I've read a couple of different explanations. The first has been mentioned, Hitler's own experiences in WW-1 gave him a fear or revulsion of gas warfare. This makes sense to me, but I am hesitant to draw any conclusions based on an understanding of his psychology.

The other explanation I've read is that the decision was purely military. Gas warfare is best suited to WW-1 conditions. Massive assaults aiming at limited tactical objectives over the static front. The offensives in the early part of WW-2 were maneuver actions over large areas. Gas would be relatively ineffective, and an actual hindrance to the offensive forces when they had taken the enemy ground.
Later in the war, when the Germans were on the defensive, gas might have been effective. They, by then, had lost air superiority, and initiation of gas warfare would have resulted in a huge and devastating response by the allies. In both phases of the war not using gas was the smart thing to do.

It's interesting that, given the large stocks of gas so little was used.

[Beanbag]

The Allies had active stockpiles of chemical weapons available to them at or near the front lines, but the official policy was that they were to be used in retaliation for chemical weapon use by the Axis forces. Sometimes things went wrong, like when a ship containing mustard gas was hit by a German air raid in Italy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Raid_on_Bari

Chemical weapons are a lot like mines in that they will happily work against friend or foe, so you have to be careful where you put them in case you have to go back over that ground. Chemical weapons can't be swept as easily as mines, and unfortunately tend to wander with wind and water. Both sides knew perfectly well what they could do, which is why they probably weren't used.

Beanbag

[GreyICE]

It's hilarious too, since the Germans had sarin gas, while the allies had mustard gas. It was the technological equivalent of one side having machine guns while the other one has front-loaded muskets. It is lucky we defeated the Germans prior to Hiroshima, since the nuclear bomb would have unleashed sarin warfare, and the allies had no similar compound.

[Major Major]

Contrary to the image of the invincible Panzer Arm, German supply transport was to a large extent horse-drawn. The army had in fact been "demechanized" in Russia, as their limited and too diverse stock of trucks had broken down (and a disproportionate percentage sent to North Africa), using in Russia panje wagons to transport supplied from the railheads (and there was another problem there) to the front-line units. And also in France and Italy.

And they did not have effective gas protection for horses.

A Sarin attack would have been devastating, for whoever was hit by it. But this would have enabled the Allies to use their more conventional poison-gas reserves. They had more, they had better delivery systems.

The German Army in the West would have collapsed, and they knew it.

:blackcat: