What if Germany, Italy, and Japan had won WWII?

[jdbenner]

I don't think the nerve gas would of been an effective weapon in WW2 since it was a very "mobile" war compared to the trench warfare of WW1.

If it was really effective, I think the Germans would of used it against the advancing Red Army in the last month of the war.  Even back then the same problems existed as did in WW1; how to deliver large amounts of gas against the enemy, the lack of safe containment while being delivered and the unpredictable weather which blows the stuff all over the place.

You are correct to note the difficulty in using chemical weapons.  Even though in theory chemical weapons can be more effective than explosives, historically they have not been.  Partially due to the effects of weather ( hardly dependable ), partially due to the greater danger to the user  and partially due to the greater training required to employ it.  Call me cynical, but I don’t think people will give up weapons they find useful on strictly humanitarian grounds.  And you are right about the early nerve gasses drifting with the wind non persistent).  But both sides had mustard and related blister agents in liquid form ( persistent ).  Mustard was developed toward the end of WWI to counter gas masks, ( this is why we ware full body suits ) it is usually in an liquid aerosol form and coats every thing for over 12 hours. When people get it on there skin it causes severe blisters.  Mustard blister and VX nerve agents can be used like a hastily emplaced mine field, slowing an enemy advance by making the terrain hazardous to cross, due to the mist of contact poison ( think of morning dew ).  So Chemical weapons could still have been used to buy time, even in the fluid battle fields of WWII.

[madmax]

While use in the field can be problematic, I was thinking more in terms of the use of nerve agents in bombing enemy cities. If the Germans had used such weapons during the Battle of Britain, and the English having no effective defense, or means to retaliate, even Churchill might have felt compeled to seek terms.

[jdbenner]

Nerve gases technically acetylcholinesterase  inhibiters are the most lethal chemical weapons.  They block the function of acetylcholinesterase preventing muscles from relaxing allowing all mussels to fully contract ultimately preventing breathing and heart function.  However most people affected do not receive lethal doses due to dilution in air and recover, with prompt advanced life support (many hours of CPR) even “lethal doses” can be survived. The British in WWII did not know this, however most chemical counter measures are universal, most are common cense.  The British did have a large chemical defense program.  People could stay indoors and close doors and windows in the  event of attack.  If any chemicals come in contact with skin or eyes flush with water immediately.  If available filter air,  even partly reducing the concentration in the breathing air, will greatly reduce the area where people receive lethal doses.  And good masks were available.  

SO YES NERVE GAS WOULD CAUSE MUCH DAMAGE, BUT NOT NESSISARILY MUCH MORE THAN EXPLOSIVES.

[solarsystemsurfer]

ok not 100% if i remember right...

the german scientists could probably have made an atomic bomb, however they put more effort into jet-planes and rockets (V1+2)

however the americans - alarmed by some scientist who recently came to the states - thought germany was ahead  so they started the manhattan project to win a race which was not really one .

greetings
seb

[Atdaban]

In terms of the American atom bomb, I think what happenned was this: Fermi in Germany split the Uranium, Szilard heard about it and the Uranium deposits in Czechoslovakia and got Einstein to write that letter to Roosevelt. Einstein actually wrote four, the last urging Roosevelt not to use the bomb. Roosevelt died before he could read it, the note laying on his desk at the time he died. Ironically Einstein was kept out of the Manhattan project.

[Bob B.]

Fermi in Germany split the Uranium...

Enrico Fermi, who was Italian-born, first split the atom at the University of Chicago in the United States.

By the way, welcome to the forum, Atdaban.

[Obviousman]

I think the biggest hurdle in the development of a Nazi nuclear weapon was the fact that Hitler thought that many of the basic material upon which nuclear research depended on was considered to be "Jewish" by Hitler and therefore to be ignored.

[jdbenner]

So racism lost Hitler the war.  

[Peyre]

Hitler’s racism lost him WWII the Russians hated Stalin (he killed more than Hitler) and were willing to help Hitler in the beginning.  But when they learned that Hitler planed to kill them all, they started fighting for there lives.

Well, the Ukrainians hated Stalin.  They had just been subjected to an ugly famine that had a lot to do with Stalin's forced collectivization program.  As you say, at first they welcomed the Germans, only to find that Nazi occupation was even worse than Soviet domination.  Stalin was also a racist himself, after a fashion--oddly enough (he was a Georgian, not a Russian), he became a Russian Chauvinist and tried to stamp out the other nationalities.

Russians, on the other hand, didn't necessarily hate Stalin; he was actually pretty popular with the common people--which boggles my mind, but whatever.  The rank and file of most countries (mine included) frequently admire those they shouldn't.

[madmax]

Including Californians. (Re: Governator)

[martin]

Stalin was also a racist himself, after a fashion--oddly enough (he was a Georgian, not a Russian), he became a Russian Chauvinist and tried to stamp out the other nationalities.

Many say he is half south ossetian, half georgian. South ossetia is inside boundaries of Georgian SSR (when there is such place), but now has practical independence from Georgia with help of russian army. There were two other regions like this within Georgian SSR, but government now has control in one.



Martin

[Johno]

You are correct to note the difficulty in using chemical weapons.  Even though in theory chemical weapons can be more effective than explosives, historically they have not been.  Partially due to the effects of weather ( hardly dependable ), partially due to the greater danger to the user  and partially due to the greater training required to employ it.  Call me cynical, but I don’t think people will give up weapons they find useful on strictly humanitarian grounds.  And you are right about the early nerve gasses drifting with the wind non persistent).  But both sides had mustard and related blister agents in liquid form ( persistent ).  Mustard was developed toward the end of WWI to counter gas masks, ( this is why we ware full body suits ) it is usually in an liquid aerosol form and coats every thing for over 12 hours. When people get it on there skin it causes severe blisters.  Mustard blister and VX nerve agents can be used like a hastily emplaced mine field, slowing an enemy advance by making the terrain hazardous to cross, due to the mist of contact poison ( think of morning dew ).  So Chemical weapons could still have been used to buy time, even in the fluid battle fields of WWII.

You are right.  No soldier would forgo a weapon that gives him or her an advantage on Ethical grounds (although they may suffer remorse later).  But I remember hearing about cases in the first Gulf conflict where Iraqi soldiers refused to use chemical weapons despite orders to do so because they were afraid of being injured by their own weapons.  Where ethics fails, pragmatism succeeds!

[NeppiTK]

Probably good, that this discussion ended  two years ago,...

but think about a realistic thing before starting a subject like this,... what would have been, if germany had filled the V1 and V2 that were fired at London not with explosives, but with nerve gas?!

What if Hitler didn´t want to go east (which was is primary target) at all,...? what if he´d attacked england right away?,... or ´41 instead of russia,.... And so you know for Military History : Italian troops never made a difference,...always, in every conflict, if the battles got to hard, and the losts got to high, they retreatet,.... seems like "to high" ment, they exceptet nobody to die,... but some foolish soldier did,...
What if Hitler hadn´t had to send the "Africa Corps" to help ItalianTroops,..?

What if the 4th Tankarmy would have moved to stalingrad and helped the 6th Army,...?

what if Hitler would have send jews to war, not to Concentration Cmps,..?

But the only good thing about that,.. after reading yout it for 6 years, i came to the conclusion Germany would have lots any way,... it could have ended before ´45 and under a bit different circumstances it could have been lasted longer,....

But in the last year of WWII as much people died as in the 5 years before! so thank god it didn´t last a month longer!!!

[NeppiTK]

You are correct to note the difficulty in using chemical weapons.  Even though in theory chemical weapons can be more effective than explosives, historically they have not been.  Partially due to the effects of weather ( hardly dependable ), partially due to the greater danger to the user  and partially due to the greater training required to employ it.  Call me cynical, but I don’t think people will give up weapons they find useful on strictly humanitarian grounds.  And you are right about the early nerve gasses drifting with the wind non persistent).  But both sides had mustard and related blister agents in liquid form ( persistent ).  Mustard was developed toward the end of WWI to counter gas masks, ( this is why we ware full body suits ) it is usually in an liquid aerosol form and coats every thing for over 12 hours. When people get it on there skin it causes severe blisters.  Mustard blister and VX nerve agents can be used like a hastily emplaced mine field, slowing an enemy advance by making the terrain hazardous to cross, due to the mist of contact poison ( think of morning dew ).  So Chemical weapons could still have been used to buy time, even in the fluid battle fields of WWII.

You are right.  No soldier would forgo a weapon that gives him or her an advantage on Ethical grounds (although they may suffer remorse later).  But I remember hearing about cases in the first Gulf conflict where Iraqi soldiers refused to use chemical weapons despite orders to do so because they were afraid of being injured by their own weapons.  Where ethics fails, pragmatism succeeds!

Thousands of German SS-Soldiers didn´t refuse to put the gas Cyclon-B into the chambers and kill about 1500 People in 45 minutes,... (it just to about 5 minutes, but then they started  ventilation and waited for at least 30 minutes to get into the camber,...)
Most the soldiers don´t use weapons like that because they are afraid of hurting themself,... thats from the ethical point of view horrible,... and not a step further away from an animal...

[Johno]

Nerve gas on civillians?  Certainly horrrible (though no more horrible than the fire raids on Dresden, or the strategic use of nukes). 

But horrible doesn't win wars.

Strategic bombing as practiced during WW2 was largely ineffective.  Some say that the strategic bombing campaign eventually caused the industrial collapse of Germany, but I would actually argue that it was in fact increasing levels of occupation that really slowed the production of war materiel.  When strategic bombing was at its peak, german oil production was also peaking.

So what we have is a method of fighting that was morally appalling and wasteful of lives on both sides; and ultimately achieved little.

I can't see nerve gas doing much more than the blitz in terms of sapping the morale of the English; they basically were galvanised into action by the bombing.