Why weren't chemical weapons used more in wwii?
>>934616
They were probably banned after WWI in general. Hitler had been on the receiving end of them personally in WWI so he refused to use them.
copypastad from some internet shitdick
>Like many people I had believed in the story that Hitler did not want to use gas because of his own trauma in the first world war (he was injured in a gas attack and temporarily blinded). It seems that this what not the case and that in fact Germany had produced large quantities of gas to be used to some extent against Great Britain, but mostly on the eastern front.
>According to the article the use of gas against Britain was hampered by the fact that by the time chemical weapons where available in large quantities there was no way to deliver them (the A4 rockets had not enough payload for a large scale attack and planes could by that time not easily operate above british soil).
>But apparently what really stopped the german plans was the fact that the allied forces had upped the ante by developing biological weapons which where (supposedly at least) much more deadly than mere poison gas. Germany had no big programs to develop biological weapons since Hitler did not believe they had enough potential to be useful (as I understand the article this had no deeper reason and was simply a misjudgment on his part. Apparently some Nazis underlings had run small developement progamms in concentration camps but (rather luckily) could not convince Hitler to allow large scale production). By the time the full potential/danger of biological weapons was recognized it was too late to catch up.
>So the authors conclude that the Nazis did not use chemical warfare because the allies could issue a plausible threat to retaliate with much more deadly and uncontainable biologicals weapons...
My immediate uneducated assumption was Hitler's personal experience with poison gas in the trenches, but the above plus the fact the wermacht used horses to pull equipment and no viable horse gas mask had been created.
>>934616
I want to smell their chemical weapons if you know what I mean.
>>934616
Because dat ass
>>934637
They were, but both sides were still willing to use them. Hell, the Nazis actually did use gas against the Russians, and before WWII, the Italians used it against the Ethiopians. The problem was MAD, as both sides were afraid of gas attacks spiraling into a cycle of increasingly destructive retaliation. For the Allies, there was also the moral side, as technically chemical weapons were still banned, and utilizing them would upset the populace. Finally, there's the issue of chemical weapons simply not being very good weapons. New technologies in artillery and air power were far more efficient in mass destruction, without the many severe drawbacks of chemical weapons; surely there were also new technologies of chemical defence.
>>934649
Isn't Biological Warfare just as ineffective as Chemical? When it comes to WMD-based warfare, Radiological has Chemical and Biological beat.
Deterrence.
If one side started using gas, the other side would as well.
The US shipped large quantities of mustard gas and paris green to Europe to make that point clear.
Basically the germans feared retaliation since they know the brits and the americans had it
>>935096
Biological weapons are probably at least less dependent on weather and harder to protect one from. More importantly, they probably just sounded scarier at the time.
>>934616
Japan used Chemical Weapons in China.
...but they were noobs at it (fucking windblown cannisters for fucks sake) due to not having to use it in WWI and gassed themselves as well when the wind blew the gas to Nips.
