PDA

View Full Version : Gas in WWII?



XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:49 AM
I haven't as of yet found any records of Germans at any point in WWII using any kind of poison gas. I'm sure they had to at some point, especially in the final Berlin street fighting. Anyone have any info on this? Thanks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

----------------------------------------
Wow, I really look good on your six. Mind if I stay there?

Crabhart

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:49 AM
I haven't as of yet found any records of Germans at any point in WWII using any kind of poison gas. I'm sure they had to at some point, especially in the final Berlin street fighting. Anyone have any info on this? Thanks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

----------------------------------------
Wow, I really look good on your six. Mind if I stay there?

Crabhart

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:51 AM
To my knowlegde, all the figthing countries had gas in storage throughout the war, but they were afraid to use them in fear of retaliation. We all know how it ended in The Great War... Not pretty..

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:56 AM
Yep. Hitler said he would never use Biological warfare even though some generals thought they should. He afctually held true to his word there. I think maybe because he was a soldier in WW1 and knew what it could do (dunno if thats right or iff i'm talking out of my *** though)

http://www.geocities.com/bs87cr/Wurger2.txt

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:56 AM
I get gas when I am flying a lot. Usually after lots of saurkraut and sausage/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:04 AM
it was banned by the Geneva convention and all sides actually stuck to it for once

the axis and some allies (notably russia and australia) tended to ignore the Geneva convention with regard to prisoner treatment but everyone conformed with the gas ban

the Brits did test different types of gas on some aussie and kiwi soldiers at one stage during WWII -- it was a bit controversial at the time, as was the deliberate exposure of Australian personnel to nuclear testing wit nothing but sunglasses after the war

the US used chemical warfare extensively in Vietnam but has always "OFFICIALLY" claimed the napalm and other chemicals were intended as defoliants

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:12 AM
Yeah, I knew about the Geneva thing, but it strikes me as kind of odd that anyone, particularly the nazis, actually took any of it seriously. Just one of the many mistakes Germany made, I suppose.

----------------------------------------
Wow, I really look good on your six. Mind if I stay there?

Crabhart

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:19 AM
The germans stuck pretty closely to the Geneva convention when dealing with the English and US .. it was only dealing with russian prisoners and occupied nations that they ignored it.
Meanwhile the Russians official stuck to the convention but also often ignored it with German prisoners.

Japanese treatment of prisoners of war was atrocious across the board of course.

On the other hand it was the English that started the whole area bombing of civilian populations and the US is only nation to ever drop nuclear weapons or napalm on anyone so no-one is squeeky clean here.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:27 AM
Touche. But I don't think the Geneva convention before the war discussed nukes. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

----------------------------------------
Wow, I really look good on your six. Mind if I stay there?

Crabhart

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:32 AM
Hitler sure used gas on the Jews. Let's not forget that little fact.

BV

<center>http://777AVG.com/sigs/sig01.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:33 AM
Hitler had been injured by a British chemical attack in WW1, I have always wondered if that was the principal reason he did not authorise its use .

I seem to recall Churchill threatening to use chemical weapons in retaliation for one attack but being overuled. Anyone recall what triggered that threat ?

Steve

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:39 AM
BS87 wrote:
- Yep. Hitler said he would never use Biological
- warfare even though some generals thought they
- should. He afctually held true to his word there. I
- think maybe because he was a soldier in WW1 and knew
- what it could do (dunno if thats right or iff i'm
- talking out of my *** though)
-

Hitler was heavily wounded during WWI due to mustard gas exposure. But I think that the real reason why nobdy used gas during WWII was that everybody was afraid of retailation: many military writers thought that an aerial bombing with gas would be so terrible to kill almost 80% of the population of the city hit.

balance of terror, Cold war didn't invent anything.

Anyway Italy, France and England didn't have any problem using gas against Ethiopian, Algerians and Iraqi rebels. No ethical consideration behind ban of gas during WWII. Only fear. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 08:26 AM
WTE_Galway wrote:
- The germans stuck pretty closely to the Geneva
- convention when dealing with the English and US ..
- it was only dealing with russian prisoners and
- occupied nations that they ignored it.
- Meanwhile the Russians official stuck to the
- convention but also often ignored it with German
- prisoners.
-
- Japanese treatment of prisoners of war was atrocious
- across the board of course.

The Japanese also weren't even signatories.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 08:29 AM
Crabhart wrote:
- Touche. But I don't think the Geneva convention
- before the war discussed nukes.

It also didn't discuss bombing of civilians, since
the relevant Geneva conventions of the time dealt
with treatment of military personnel in battle,
and details of who did and did not constitute a
combatant. (E.g. technically allied Commando units
engaged in sabotage could be executed, even if in
uniform, although this was perhaps against the
spirit of the convention!).

The convention dealing with bombing of civilians
was the Hague Convention.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 08:33 AM
FlankerK wrote:
- I seem to recall Churchill threatening to use
- chemical weapons in retaliation for one attack but
- being overuled. Anyone recall what triggered that
- threat ?

Churchill was quite a proponent of gas in general,
especially advocating its use against natives in
what was then Mesopotamia in the early 1920s.

I don't know what it was in response to, but he
advocated the dropping of mustard gas on German
civilians as an adjunct to area bombing, and even
now around airbases in Yorkshire, mustard gas dumps
are regularly found (although sometimes they represent
the army dumping supplies post war).

He was overruled on the basis that if the Germans
retaliated in kind the UK would be totally unprepared
as by mid war most civilians had thrown away their
gas masks (a lot of military personnel dumped theirs
as soon as they could - gas mask bags make great
bags for carrying useful things in)

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 10:42 AM
I believe Churchill suggested the use of gas on German cities after London was struck by V1's. The Americans convinced the British not to use gas. Why I'm not sure. So late in the war you think all sides would have woken to the fact that bombing civilians has no impact on the capacity to produce arms,cause internal revolution or reduce the effectiveness of armies.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 10:47 AM
Hitler would never use poison gas because he was gassed himself in battle in WW I. he never did nor ever would use gas in war. as a side note hitler thought of the jews as subhuman and did not consider gassing jews a crime. may he burn in the deepest pits of hell forever awake

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ.6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 10:49 AM
Britain also got quite an amount of Anthrax from the US close to the end of the war. The reason given, as to why it was not used, was that Churchill was afraid the british soldiers would get infected.

<p align="center">http://hometown.aol.de/Deathbrng/Sigfinal.jpg</p><p align="center">'Hmmm? I wonder what the red button is for........'</p><p align="center">HL Nick = BLUE_Schnitter</p>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 11:37 AM
well, here in italy there had been an accident during the war: an allied convoy transporting Hyprite (dunno if it is the correct spelling) was bombed by germans while on a harbour in southern italy. The incident was soon covered because it was against the Geneve convention. It seems that the allies wanted to use it against the germans on Montecassino, since they were becoming a serious issue.
Another "what if" of the war...

SJ

http://www.il2sturmovik.it/topbar2.jpg

Visita il portale italiano di IL-2 Sturmovik!!!

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:50 PM
Churchill was actually a nasty piece of work, the poms got rid of him immediately the war was over .. it has been suggested the reason he was awake up to Hitler so early in the 30's is they had very similiar personalities.

Among other things in a sweetheart agreement with Stalin after the war, in exchange for some political concessions, Churchill arrested and sent back to Russia thousands of political refugees who ran away to Britian during the revolution 30 years early .. including teenage and younger children who were actually born in England .. they almost all died in the Gulag death camps. Look up the Yalta agreement if you are interested.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:56 PM
And I know there is also a gas named FART.

When they are collected in big amount, and compressed together, they are capable of exploding juz like the A-Bomb used on Japan.

And what's more, they are FREE.


<center>

http://www.geocities.com/warhawk530/AVG.jpg


'It is the Courage, not the score, that counts ...' - Mohd Naqiuddin

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 01:15 PM
I have a foto of a FW189 with gas containers under its wing
for use against enemy ground forces(eastern front),

cant remember what gas they used,

has anybody else seen this picture?

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/SigFS.jpg?0.6257472972436022 </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 01:41 PM
Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva conventions. This is why they did not treat the POWs of any nation (not only German POWs) in a civilised way. This is also why the Soviet POWs were treated badly by Germans - although the Convention says that the country that signed it must treat all POWs accordingly, irrespective what country they come from.

On the other hand, a captured Soviet soldier was in a bad position whatsoever - even if he managed back to his camerades, he was to be shot for desertion, by Stalin's personal orders from 1940.

The same holds for the Japanese - they didn't sign the Convention, so they didn't feel obliged to follow it.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 03:38 PM
WTE_Galway wrote -
- it has been suggested the reason he was awake up to
- Hitler so early in the 30's is they had very
- similiar personalities.

Do you REALLY mean to compare Churchill to Hitler? Very hard to swallow, sir.

..... and Churchill was out of office by July 1945, so how exactly did he manage to return all these people to the Soviets? If it was indeed a part of the terms of the Yalta agreement, are you certain that he actively supported the idea, or grudgingly acceded to the notion in order to keep the peace with Roosevelt and Stalin?



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 03:46 PM
WTE_Galway wrote:
- Churchill was actually a nasty piece of work,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. He was a complex
character (I haven't finished the Jenkins biography
yet - too many other things have got in the way). It's
not a defence, but some of his views were common place
at the time. For example his desire to see the 'criminally
feeble minded' (aka the very poor) interned and sterilised
in 1910 was also a common place view on all sides of the political specturm including the USA and Germany. Eugenics
was also espoused by leading Fabians of the time (e.g.
H.G. Wells).

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 04:07 PM
Excuse me...Hitler used no gas? On the battlefield no he didnt. But in aiding killing the millions of jews, and other non master race people he did.
They had them go into a packed room they said was a shower and then were all gassed.

Take a look to the sky just before you die. Its the last time you will!
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/jacktheripper.jpg<br \>Which Evil Criminal are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/)

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 05:51 PM
The Germans were documented in using gas in one thing - the PzB 39 Anti-tank rifle. It fired an (obsolete) 7.92mm round at an extreme velocity (~4000ft/sec), which was totally ineffective against modern (WWII-era) tanks. The inside of it was steel cored, and contained a .4 gram pellet of tear gas that was intended to burst open once the bullet had penetrated the tank, releasing the gas into the interior and forcing the crew to bail out. It didn't work...at all. The gas would most likely burn up as the bullet entered the tank (if it did...like I said, it was ineffective against modern armor), and even in cases where it did enter, no tankers ever complained of the gas. From my understanding, Allied scientists didn't even find this out until after the war was already over.
Beyond that, and the gas chambers, I have no knowledge of anyone using chemical warfare during WWII. There were various incendiary and smoke grenades, rounds, etc. that might be considered "chemical warfare" if you really want to push the envelope, but none were designed to make you throw up your lungs or anything.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:19 PM
"On the other hand it was the English that started the whole area bombing of civilian populations and the US is only nation to ever drop nuclear weapons or napalm on anyone so no-one is squeeky clean here."

Where did you learn history?
Rotterdam, Warsaw, London, Coventry, Murmansk, Leningrad, etc.. etc.. all area bombed by germans.. please/

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:24 PM
Actually the Germans made extensive use of poison gas. They just used it on civilians.



<center> http://www.4yourfuture.net/handshake.gif


"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 06:54 PM
- Churchill was actually a nasty piece of work, the
- poms got rid of him immediately the war was over ..

And re-elected him a few years later.

- Among other things in a sweetheart agreement with
- Stalin after the war, in exchange for some political
- concessions, Churchill arrested and sent back to
- Russia thousands of political refugees who ran away
- to Britian during the revolution 30 years early ..

No refugees were sent back from Britain, and no sweetheart deal was done after the war.

During, and just after Yalta, the allies agreed to repatriate Russians found to have aided the Germans, such as the Cossacks groups that had fought for Germany.

Britain and America handed these people back, as agreed.

However, in Austria and Italy, some who had not aided the Germans were sent back as well, despite British government instructions not to.

You can read more by Count Nicholai Tolstoy here:

http://www.libertyhaven.com/countriesandregions/exurss/repatriationtosu.shtml

- On the other hand it was the English that started
- the whole area bombing of civilian populations

The Germans certainly used it at Guernica, and Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry etc.

British bombing raids against industrial targets in Germany were banned until after Rotterdam.

- the Brits did test different types of gas on some
- aussie and kiwi soldiers at one stage during WWII --
- it was a bit controversial at the time, as was the
- deliberate exposure of Australian personnel to
- nuclear testing wit nothing but sunglasses after the
- war

Chemical weapon tests have always been carried out on troops, and they were carried out on British troops as well, until well into the 60s, I believe.

The same is true of the early Nuclear tests, the US Britain and USSR all exposed troops close to the tests.