Why nazis didn't use chemical weapons in world war 2?

Question

hi;

German army had used the chemical weapons on world war1

why Hitler or the nazis didn't use the chemical weapons when they found they will be defeated in world war 2 ?

Answer 1

Good question. I want to say they did in limited amounts in one theater but I'm not sure, but the main reasons are:

A) The German generals knew it to be a rather ineffective weapon.

B) Hitler was always afraid (or his advisors were) that if Germany used it, the allies would.

C) Hitler was exposed to gas in WWI and had developed something of a fear about it.

D) In the closing days of the war Hitler did order the use of chemical weapons anyway, but his generals ignored him, knowing it would only make things worse for them after the inevitable defeat.

And I know Hitler used them in camps, but I didn't think that's what the asker meant

Answer 2

Forgetting about the camps because I don't think that what you mean by this question.

Deploying chemical weapons into a theater of war is a problem in that the chemical weapons are not selective. You would hinder you own army as much or more than the other army.

Hitler was severely wounded by chemical weapons during the first world war and had a personal bias against them, born of first hand experience.

When Hitler final did authorize their use in general warfare it was too late to make a difference in the outcome of the war and would have put civilian populations in Germany at risk. Hitlers generals wisely didn't deploy them knowing that any use in this futile attempt would come back to haunt them after their defeat.

Answer 3

There are a few reasons. The first is that at onset of hostilites Allied nations set forth that if chemical weapons were used that they would respond in kind. While Germany held a technical advantage in chemical warfare with the development of nerve agents, their stock pile of such weapons was very small compared to that of the Allied nations. There was discussion of using chemical warheads on the V1 and V2 rockets, but due to their small payload it was decided that explosive warheads would do more damage.

Not only did Germany have a smaller arsenal of chemical weapons, but it was also less capable of providing protecting its civilan population. England had issued 11 million gas masks to its civilian population during the war. Germany made little or no attempts to do the same.

Had chemcial weapons been used, Germany would have suffered the most losses.

As other answers had mentioned, there was also the fact that Hitler had seemed to develop a psycological adversion to chemcial weapons due to his own experiance during WW 1.

I would like to voice my disagreement with a previous answer which stated that the theater was condusive to the use of chemical weapons. Despite the fact that it was no longer a matter of trench warfare, chemical weapons could have been used very effectively. Many of the chemical weaons on both sides were designed to remain presistant for some time after release. This were intended to be used for area-denial. Major logistical points are always valnuerable to chemical attack do their static nature. Ports, bridges, and crossroads can not be moved. It was also noted that if the Germans had used even a light barrage of chemical shells during Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion would have been pushed back into the sea, delaying the invasion for months. I have included references to two books below that go into this subject with more detail.

Answer 4

Chemical weapons are only effective, as the first war proved, if the 'theatre' will support their use.
A static campaign, such as the Western front with it's trenches was ideal.
In a Blitzkrieg campaign, everything moves too quickly for the use of gas, or other chemicals. Also, deployment systems were fairly crude.
Just another little piece in the great jigsaw of 'why?'.

Answer 5

Hitler was gassed during WWI and didn't like chem-weps personally. He also was well aware of the world-reaction to their use in WWI.

ALSO, the Geneva Accords banned their use.

ALSO, as others have explained, WWII was far different than WWI in the sense that World War II was FLUID rather than static... Chem-weps are BEST used on defensive positions, and are very dependent on weather and winds to be effective.

Answer 6

Many historians believe that Hitlers experiences on the front lines in WW I and his exposure to being gassed caused him to pause about using it. He was afraid of the Allied response if the Germans had used it. Alot of people wonder why he didn't do it, but did many terrible things, I think it was personal to him.

Answer 7

They did, to the tune of 6 million Jews, 2 million Gypsies, 3 million others (including slavs, political and religious opponents and gays).

It's called Zyklon-B

Answer 8

there's no justification for utilising chemical guns. Ask the Kurds of Iraq, or the Iraqi courtroom that sentenced Ali Hassan al-Majid to lack of life for his area in utilising such guns. using white phosphorous in civilian elements is banned in global regulation. If Hamas grow to be utilising faculties etc. as disguise for firing its rockets, it quite is likewise banned in global regulation, yet to apply that as justification for illegally utilising ones personal guns is to point that 2 wrongs make a suitable - a justification that has been tried formerly, and positioned pretend. i imagine it somewhat severe to judge Israel with Nazi Germany, yet have little doubt, from interpreting the statements that were made by its leaders because the Nineteen Thirties (formerly it grow to be everywhere close to receiving global popularity as a us of a in its personal proper) and as a lot because the present, that it perceives itself as having an inalienable proper to occupy each and each of the territories now wide-spread as Israel, the West monetary organization and Gaza. that's tricky. The Palestinian peoples received't, i trust, ever tolerate the type of situation, and that i do not blame them. Israel's apologists quite might want to look extra heavily, and quite, on the area. it truly is all too uncomplicated responsible succesive Palestinian representations (Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas in turn). Israel needs to look extra heavily on the area it has performed, the very genuine clarification why Palestinians regard them with suspicion or perhaps hatred, and how they are going to persuade themselves to hit upon a way out of the mess by pleasing with Palestinian representatives and negotiating a lasting peace it quite is suited to each and each area. "we received't verify with terrorist agencies" is a puerile and fatally flawed position to undertake, and may lead nowhere except into extra conflict.

Answer 9

They did use those weapons in WWII. It was used in the camps to kill the Jews, Pols, and any other non pure Germans.

Answer 10

Technically, they did. They used several on the victims of the concentration camps: poison bullets, Zyklon B, etcetera.