Soviets initiate chemical weapon use in 1941

[sillygoose]

Historically the Soviets threatened to retaliate with chemical weapons when the Germans used their Nebelwerfer rocket launchers to good effect during Operation Barbarossa. The Germans kept using them and the Soviets backed down from their threat. What if they didn't and in response to their defeats in June and July started using chemical weapons in August 1941 in their attacks around Smolensk? How would it impact the campaign and what would the British do? The Soviets had a lot of mustard gas, an excellent defensive weapon, stockpiled thanks to the Reichswehr-Red Army cooperation in the 1920s.

 

[WolfBear]

This might cause the Anglo-Americans to somewhat reduce their support for the Soviet Union, no? Or they might decide that continuing their alliance with the devil at all costs is worth it, perhaps? Still, if the Soviets will use chemical weapons against the Nazis, then there is a very real risk that the Nazis will retaliate in a similar manner against the Soviets sooner or later. In turn, this raises the question: Just how much higher are the death and casualty counts going to be on the Eastern Front of World War II in this TL?

 

[sillygoose]

This might cause the Anglo-Americans to somewhat reduce their support for the Soviet Union, no? Or they might decide that continuing their alliance with the devil at all costs is worth it, perhaps? Still, if the Soviets will use chemical weapons against the Nazis, then there is a very real risk that the Nazis will retaliate in a similar manner against the Soviets sooner or later. In turn, this raises the question: Just how much higher are the death and casualty counts going to be on the Eastern Front of World War II in this TL?

I doubt it. The Americans weren't even giving LL at this point to the Soviets and Churchill was so bloodthirsty he was advocating throughout the war for using chemical and biological weapons on Germany. I have sources on that if anyone is interested.
Undoubtedly the Allies wouldn't care, their only interest was beating Germany. Now they probably wouldn't engage in it unless the Germans did first.

The Nazis would of course respond once the Soviets made it clear they were going to use chemical weapons. Question is whether after the initial go-around the two sides come to an agreement to stop, because both sides would be seriously hurt by it. Both sides used horses extensively for logistics and military operations, so that right there would be very problematic. I suppose the Soviets would get the worst of it though as the Germans did develop nerve gas and the war was being fought on their territory. The siege of Leningrad would get extremely bad if they were used. The initial shock of it would probably seriously slow down Barbarossa in certain places, question is how far short would it be stopped from OTL?

If chemical weapons are used to the bitter end the casualties would be horrific, again just think about their use against Leningrad. Or Stalingrad. Or Moscow. It might give Germany the edge to win, but it would be quite a horrible war for everyone.

The more I consider it there seems to be very good reasons why the Soviets never risked CW.

 

[WolfBear]

I doubt it. The Americans weren't even giving LL at this point to the Soviets and Churchill was so bloodthirsty he was advocating throughout the war for using chemical and biological weapons on Germany. I have sources on that if anyone is interested.
Undoubtedly the Allies wouldn't care, their only interest was beating Germany. Now they probably wouldn't engage in it unless the Germans did first.

The Nazis would of course respond once the Soviets made it clear they were going to use chemical weapons. Question is whether after the initial go-around the two sides come to an agreement to stop, because both sides would be seriously hurt by it. Both sides used horses extensively for logistics and military operations, so that right there would be very problematic. I suppose the Soviets would get the worst of it though as the Germans did develop nerve gas and the war was being fought on their territory. The siege of Leningrad would get extremely bad if they were used. The initial shock of it would probably seriously slow down Barbarossa in certain places, question is how far short would it be stopped from OTL?

If chemical weapons are used to the bitter end the casualties would be horrific, again just think about their use against Leningrad. Or Stalingrad. Or Moscow. It might give Germany the edge to win, but it would be quite a horrible war for everyone.

The more I consider it there seems to be very good reasons why the Soviets never risked CW.

Which sources do you have for this?

And Yeah, I actually could see Nazi Germany using chemical weapons against Soviet civilians if the Soviet Union will use chemical weapons against Nazi soldiers. And frankly, I just suspect that such widespread use of chemical weapons would bleed the Soviet Union dry, thus ensuring that either huge numbers of Western Allied troops would need to be sent to the Eastern Front in order to save it or that the Nazis will win the war in the East and possibly the war in general.

 

[raharris1973]

I doubt it. The Americans weren't even giving LL at this point to the Soviets and Churchill was so bloodthirsty he was advocating throughout the war for using chemical and biological weapons on Germany. I have sources on that if anyone is interested.
Undoubtedly the Allies wouldn't care, their only interest was beating Germany. Now they probably wouldn't engage in it unless the Germans did first.

I agree with this.

Whatever the defensive uses of mustard, it seems to me that with prevailing winds generally running west to east, it's a bad idea for any eastern power to initiate chemical warfare with a power to its west.

 

[ATP]

Historically the Soviets threatened to retaliate with chemical weapons when the Germans used their Nebelwerfer rocket launchers to good effect during Operation Barbarossa. The Germans kept using them and the Soviets backed down from their threat. What if they didn't and in response to their defeats in June and July started using chemical weapons in August 1941 in their attacks around Smolensk? How would it impact the campaign and what would the British do? The Soviets had a lot of mustard gas, an excellent defensive weapon, stockpiled thanks to the Reichswehr-Red Army cooperation in the 1920s.

Nothing really change in 1941,in 1944 sarin stop soviets on Wisła or even Bug river.

 

[stevep]

I doubt it. The Americans weren't even giving LL at this point to the Soviets and Churchill was so bloodthirsty he was advocating throughout the war for using chemical and biological weapons on Germany. I have sources on that if anyone is interested.
Undoubtedly the Allies wouldn't care, their only interest was beating Germany. Now they probably wouldn't engage in it unless the Germans did first.

To clarify Churchill considered using gas and other unconventional weapons against a German invasion and made clear Britain would use chemical weapons against the Germans if they used them 1st, either against Britain or allies - which would have included the USSR.

If Stalin used chemical weapons 1st then its difficult to say what the British reaction would be. Ditto with the US. Note that also Britain and the US were both democratic states so there were some limits on what their leaders could do, even in an existential conflict.

 

[sillygoose]

To clarify Churchill considered using gas and other unconventional weapons against a German invasion and made clear Britain would use chemical weapons against the Germans if they used them 1st, either against Britain or allies - which would have included the USSR.

Nope. He wanted to use them first first wanted to use them against any invasion in 1940.
The book "A Higher Form of Killing" has several chapters on the subject.
Churchill was a legit piece of shit and its lucky for humanity that the British military establishment was much more moral than he.

If Stalin used chemical weapons 1st then its difficult to say what the British reaction would be. Ditto with the US. Note that also Britain and the US were both democratic states so there were some limits on what their leaders could do, even in an existential conflict.

Sure (though the Bari situation in 1943 does suggest there was something going on). If both sides kept to the Geneva Convention in the West then it is possible that the gas exchange remains in the East, much like the lack of Geneva Convention being applied there was.

 

[stevep]

Nope. He wanted to use them first first wanted to use them against any invasion in 1940.
The book "A Higher Form of Killing" has several chapters on the subject.
Churchill was a legit piece of shit and its lucky for humanity that the British military establishment was much more moral than he.

Exactly what I said. Did you fail to read what I said or to understand it? Nuclear weapons are called deterrent for very good reason and the same applies to gas in 1940.

Churchill was a man of his times and frequently a fool but he was still far, far more civilised than Hitler or Stalin.

Sure (though the Bari situation in 1943 does suggest there was something going on). If both sides kept to the Geneva Convention in the West then it is possible that the gas exchange remains in the East, much like the lack of Geneva Convention being applied there was.

Not really. The allies needed stockpiles in theatre to respond quickly to any Axis 1st use. I think your letting your bias as a Nazi apologist come through there.

Similarly if the Nazis breach the convention then there is no legal reason for the western allies to continue non-use and if it looks like the Nazis are going to win in the east plenty of reason not to. Not to mention that of course the US hadn't signed the convention so it would have been fully legal for it to launch gas attacks anywhere under the law.

 

[sillygoose]

Exactly what I said. Did you fail to read what I said or to understand it?

You need to work on your reading comprehension, because I said that is when Churchill first advocated for it, but then never stopped advocating for their use against Germany offensively regardless of whether or not Germany used them. Work on your attitude.

Nuclear weapons are called deterrent for very good reason and the same applies to gas in 1940.

Not when the PM was demanding their offensive use. Luckily the other decision makers refused to allow it.

Churchill was a man of his times and frequently a fool but he was still far, far more civilised than Hitler or Stalin.

Apparently not given that Hitler and Stalin refused to use chemical weapons, but Churchill wanted to but was restrained by the system. He had a pattern of advocating for their offensive use:

Was Churchill advocate of chemical weapons’ use in Mideast?

The Western condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East, and further afield, is well documented. They have been used to justify threats

english.alarabiya.net

Also the Indians disagree about Churchill's civility:

Churchill's legacy leaves Indians questioning his hero status

Yogita Limaye explores how Indians are questioning more about the dark chapters of colonial history.

www.bbc.com

Not really. The allies needed stockpiles in theatre to respond quickly to any Axis 1st use. I think your letting your bias as a Nazi apologist come through there.

There it is, accusing people of nazism for disagreeing with your rose tinted view of your empire and national heroes.
The European Axis never used them but somehow there was a fear of them using it first? Not real need to keep them in theater given that the Allies had bombers ready to use them based in Britain at any time. It only lead to disaster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari

Similarly if the Nazis breach the convention then there is no legal reason for the western allies to continue non-use and if it looks like the Nazis are going to win in the east plenty of reason not to.

Nazis breach the convention? Did you read the OP? If the Allies view losing as a reason to use, then they are going to be the breachers of the convention.

Not to mention that of course the US hadn't signed the convention so it would have been fully legal for it to launch gas attacks anywhere under the law.

Shockingly you're incorrect yet again.

UNODA Treaties Database

treaties.unoda.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

The US signed the 1925 treaty that banned their use.
All the US did was lodge a reservation about their use with countries that didn't observe the prohibition. Reservations don't nullify any of the agreed terms of the treaty, which banned first use against any power even if they were already using it against a third power.

The Soviets didn't sign the treaty though. So per the terms of the treaty the Soviets are not protected against their use even if they didn't initiate CW exchange:

Eric Croddy, assessing the Protocol in 2005, took the view that the historic record showed it had been largely ineffectual. Specifically it did not prohibit:[11]

• use against not-ratifying parties

 

[sillygoose]

Nothing really change in 1941,in 1944 sarin stop soviets on Wisła or even Bug river.

Raharris makes a good point about the direction of the winds, though with some planning that could probably be nullified as a problem. Just use it further west of the target so the winds blow it to the target and disperse it before it reaches their own lines.

Disagree about it not making a difference in 1941. If the Soviets used it as part of their offensive operations around Smolensk they'd be able to do real damage, especially around Yelnya, which would probably prevent the attack on Moscow given that the first use shock could well enable them to retake Smolensk and badly disrupt German offensive operations. It is the aftermath of that that would see things get quite nasty in the east. Sarin production was basically still in experimental quantities in 1941 and never were particularly high even by the very end (no more than 10 tons produced for the entire war), but the ultra persistent mustard gas developed by Germany would be a very nasty weapon. Apparently the variety used was dumped in the Baltic Sea after the war for disposal, but occasionally it is found by fishermen and is still quite dangerous even today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas#History

Most of the mustard gas found in Germany after World War II was dumped into the Baltic Sea. Between 1966 and 2002, fishermen have found about 700 chemical weapons in the region of Bornholm, most of which contain mustard gas. One of the more frequently dumped weapons was "Sprühbüchse 37" (SprüBü37, Spray Can 37, 1937 being the year of its fielding with the German Army). These weapons contain mustard gas mixed with a thickener, which gives it a tar-like viscosity. When the content of the SprüBü37 comes in contact with water, only the mustard gas in the outer layers of the lumps of viscous mustard hydrolyzes, leaving behind amber-colored residues that still contain most of the active mustard gas. On mechanically breaking these lumps (e.g., with the drag board of a fishing net or by the human hand) the enclosed mustard gas is still as active as it had been at the time the weapon was dumped. These lumps, when washed ashore, can be mistaken for amber, which can lead to severe health problems. Artillery shells containing mustard gas and other toxic ammunition from World War I (as well as conventional explosives) can still be found in France and Belgium. These were formerly disposed of by explosion undersea, but since the current environmental regulations prohibit this, the French government is building an automated factory to dispose of the accumulation of chemical shells.

 

[ATP]

Raharris makes a good point about the direction of the winds, though with some planning that could probably be nullified as a problem. Just use it further west of the target so the winds blow it to the target and disperse it before it reaches their own lines.

Disagree about it not making a difference in 1941. If the Soviets used it as part of their offensive operations around Smolensk they'd be able to do real damage, especially around Yelnya, which would probably prevent the attack on Moscow given that the first use shock could well enable them to retake Smolensk and badly disrupt German offensive operations. It is the aftermath of that that would see things get quite nasty in the east. Sarin production was basically still in experimental quantities in 1941 and never were particularly high even by the very end (no more than 10 tons produced for the entire war), but the ultra persistent mustard gas developed by Germany would be a very nasty weapon. Apparently the variety used was dumped in the Baltic Sea after the war for disposal, but occasionally it is found by fishermen and is still quite dangerous even today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas#History

So,soviets would advance slower,and taking destroyed land.Enough time for introduce Sarin in 1944,which,at least on East,would be game changer.

 

[sillygoose]

So,soviets would advance slower,and taking destroyed land.Enough time for introduce Sarin in 1944,which,at least on East,would be game changer.

As a defensive weapon mustard gas is very effective and persistent. Sarin disperses quickly and is a better offensive weapon as a result, but not a game charger really. Both are good for cleaning out fortified positions even with gas masks, but the downside of mustard gas is how persistent it is. BTW IIRC the Soviets had the largest CW stockpile in the world.

 

[ATP]

As a defensive weapon mustard gas is very effective and persistent. Sarin disperses quickly and is a better offensive weapon as a result, but not a game charger really. Both are good for cleaning out fortified positions even with gas masks, but the downside of mustard gas is how persistent it is. BTW IIRC the Soviets had the largest CW stockpile in the world.

Only partially true,sarin would kill through skin,too.So,gas masks alone would not save soviets soldiers from it - and they do not have chemical suits for each soldier yet.
When germans was OK in gas masks only against soviet mustard gas.

 

[sillygoose]

Only partially true,sarin would kill through skin,too.So,gas masks alone would not save soviets soldiers from it - and they do not have chemical suits for each soldier yet.
When germans was OK in gas masks only against soviet mustard gas.

Sure, just am saying due to the inability to make sufficient amounts (they were building a high capacity production facility throughout the war, but it wasn't ready by the end) Sarin won't be a game changer despite being more lethal for the reason you say. Also due to the lack of persistence it loses the area denial ability of mustard gas which lingers and makes an area very dangerous to go through since it also absorbs and damages through the skin. Then the less lethal aspects of the gas really make themselves felt due to causing injuries that require lots of medical care and drain resources. Plus set up long term health problems for survivors.

You're right that the Germans have an advantage in gas mask technology and construction (and production), but keep in mind the above part about the impact of mustard gas on the skin and long term health issues that could cripple troops.

 

[ATP]

Sure, just am saying due to the inability to make sufficient amounts (they were building a high capacity production facility throughout the war, but it wasn't ready by the end) Sarin won't be a game changer despite being more lethal for the reason you say. Also due to the lack of persistence it loses the area denial ability of mustard gas which lingers and makes an area very dangerous to go through since it also absorbs and damages through the skin. Then the less lethal aspects of the gas really make themselves felt due to causing injuries that require lots of medical care and drain resources. Plus set up long term health problems for survivors.

You're right that the Germans have an advantage in gas mask technology and construction (and production), but keep in mind the above part about the impact of mustard gas on the skin and long term health issues that could cripple troops.

So...first germans advance only to Don,and later soviets crawl slowly to Dniepr getting destroyed Ukraine unable to deliver anything?
Would germans use sarin in France,too?

 

[sillygoose]

So...first germans advance only to Don,and later soviets crawl slowly to Dniepr getting destroyed Ukraine unable to deliver anything?

Not sure about the Soviets being able to make it to the Dnieper if faced with chemical weapons. Leningrad would probably fall ITTL, Rzhev may never happen, Stalingrad might not be reached, etc.

Would germans use sarin in France,too?

Probably not unless attacked by CW first.

 

[WolfBear]

Not sure about the Soviets being able to make it to the Dnieper if faced with chemical weapons.

This would make a separate peace much more likely, no?

 

[stevep]

You need to work on your reading comprehension, because I said that is when Churchill first advocated for it, but then never stopped advocating for their use against Germany offensively regardless of whether or not Germany used them. Work on your attitude.

Not when the PM was demanding their offensive use. Luckily the other decision makers refused to allow it.

Apparently not given that Hitler and Stalin refused to use chemical weapons, but Churchill wanted to but was restrained by the system. He had a pattern of advocating for their offensive use:

Was Churchill advocate of chemical weapons’ use in Mideast?

The Western condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East, and further afield, is well documented. They have been used to justify threats

english.alarabiya.net

Also the Indians disagree about Churchill's civility:

Churchill's legacy leaves Indians questioning his hero status

Yogita Limaye explores how Indians are questioning more about the dark chapters of colonial history.

www.bbc.com

There it is, accusing people of nazism for disagreeing with your rose tinted view of your empire and national heroes.
The European Axis never used them but somehow there was a fear of them using it first? Not real need to keep them in theater given that the Allies had bombers ready to use them based in Britain at any time. It only lead to disaster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raid_on_Bari

Nazis breach the convention? Did you read the OP? If the Allies view losing as a reason to use, then they are going to be the breachers of the convention.

Shockingly you're incorrect yet again.

UNODA Treaties Database

treaties.unoda.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

The US signed the 1925 treaty that banned their use.
All the US did was lodge a reservation about their use with countries that didn't observe the prohibition. Reservations don't nullify any of the agreed terms of the treaty, which banned first use against any power even if they were already using it against a third power.

The Soviets didn't sign the treaty though. So per the terms of the treaty the Soviets are not protected against their use even if they didn't initiate CW exchange:

I'm referring to you as a Nazi apologist for your extreme attempts to excuse their behaviour and atrocities. Like claiming that they only murdered Jews because they didn't have the capacity to feed them which is clearly untrue. A lot were murdered in cold blood in 1941 when the Germans were storming through the western USSR and securing some of the richest agricultural lands in the world and should have been perfectly capable of sustaining the population under their control. Especially when they were still expecting a very easy victory in the east. Or the lengths they went to, often imposing considerable burdens on their empire to hunt down Jews, dragging them off to death camps and imposing death marches to keep them out of allied hands even when their empire was falling apart.

Similarly your claims that Hitler's desire for Lebensraum were limited only to the conquest of Poland, then later only to regaining the German 1914 borders when that's in direct contradiction of both what Hitler repeatedly said and logic as the entire argument for Lebensraum was to avoid the sort of economic vulnerability that played such a significant part in Germany's defeat in 1914-18.

As such the issue is not my beliefs but your own arguments. That your unhappy about being called out about it is your problem not mine.

On the Geneva Convention the link you gave gives details

Eric Croddy, assessing the Protocol in 2005, took the view that the historic record showed it had been largely ineffectual. Specifically it did not prohibit:[11]

• use against not-ratifying parties
• retaliation using such weapons, so effectively making it a no-first-use agreement
• use within a state's own borders in a civil conflict
• research and development of such weapons, or stockpiling them

In light of these shortcomings, Jack Beard notes that "the Protocol (...) resulted in a legal framework that allowed states to conduct [biological weapons] research, develop new biological weapons, and ultimately engage in [biological weapons] arms races".[6]

Despite the U.S. having been a proponent of the protocol, the U.S. military and American Chemical Society lobbied against it, causing the U.S. Senate not to ratify the protocol until 1975, the same year when the United States ratified the Biological Weapons Convention.[11][15]

Note that
a) The US didn't ratify the convention until 1975, which was some time after WWII ended.

b) Also as it was a no 1st use agreement so if a signatory had used it against a power which hadn't that was still a breach of the convention by the signatory power. So again your factually inaccurate in that gas could be used 1st against the Soviets by a signatory.

Yes Churchill did advocate use of gas among other weapons to prevent a successful German invasion. Which would have been a breach of the convention but given the survival of the nation that would have been an understandable action and something in the circumstances I would definitely have considered in his position. He also threatened use of gas against Germany if it used it against any allied powers, including the Soviets but he didn't as you admit actually use it without such an event.

I should note that your also wrong in that the Italians used mustard gas in their invasion of Ethiopia in 1936. So ironically the Germans were the only major fascist power to not to use poisoned gas against combatants - as opposed of course to Jews and other 'undesirables'.

 

[sillygoose]

This is not a thread to air whatever grievances you have with me, so please stay on topic instead of making it a personal issue.

On the Geneva Convention the link you gave gives details


Note that
a) The US didn't ratify the convention until 1975, which was some time after WWII ended.

Legal formality that didn't impact policy. Same with the US not signing the Hague Convention elements that prohibited dum-dum bullets. The US followed the Geneva Protocol between 1925-75. We can quibble about the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam of course, but in WW2 and Korea they followed it to the letter as far as we know.

b) Also as it was a no 1st use agreement so if a signatory had used it against a power which hadn't that was still a breach of the convention by the signatory power.
So again your factually inaccurate in that gas could be used 1st against the Soviets by a signatory.

Rather a moot point, as it turns out the Soviets did sign the treaty, they are listed under Russia in the list of signatories, which I missed when looking for the USSR or Soviets in the list.
The reason I was saying that it wasn't really applicable to non-signatories was due to the fact that several colonial powers did use CW against non-signatories without anyone complaining about it being a breach of the treaty:

Several countries have deployed or prepared chemical weapons in spite of the treaty; Spain and France did so in the Rif War in 1928, after the signing of the Protocol but prior to its taking effect, Japan used chemical weapons against Taiwan in 1930 during the Musha Incident, Italy used mustard gas against the Ethiopian Empire in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, and Japan used chemical weapons against China in the Second Sino-Japanese War.

That lead to this assessment of the treaty:

Eric Croddy, assessing the Protocol in 2005, took the view that the historic record showed it had been largely ineffectual. Specifically it did not prohibit:[11]

• use against not-ratifying parties
• retaliation using such weapons, so effectively making it a no-first-use agreement
• use within a state's own borders in a civil conflict
• research and development of such weapons, or stockpiling them

The Soviets therefore adhered to their treaty IOTL, making the premise of this POD highly flawed.

Yes Churchill did advocate use of gas among other weapons to prevent a successful German invasion.

And beyond through the end of the war. He also advocated the US of weaponized anthrax.

Which would have been a breach of the convention but given the survival of the nation that would have been an understandable action and something in the circumstances I would definitely have considered in his position.

Yet the Nazis didn't plan to use it against the Allies during an invasion in 1944 despite national survival being at stake, much more so than a British defeat in 1940.

He also threatened use of gas against Germany if it used it against any allied powers, including the Soviets but he didn't as you admit actually use it without such an event.

He didn't, he kept pushing for its use as well as anthrax throughout the rest of the war, but was voted down by the rest of the military establishment. He wanted to but was prevented from doing so by the saner members of the government. Again all in the book with some copies of actual documents of the plans for use in the book "A Higher Form of Killing"

A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemica…

A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemica…

www.goodreads.com

I should note that your also wrong in that the Italians used mustard gas in their invasion of Ethiopia in 1936. So ironically the Germans were the only major fascist power to not to use poisoned gas against combatants - as opposed of course to Jews and other 'undesirables'.

Uh...WW2 wasn't going on in 1936 and there was no Axis alliance in 1936 either. The Tripartite pact was in September 1940. The Pact of Steel was in 1939, which was the first formal alliance between Germany and Italy. The earlier October 1936 protocol was a treaty laying out mutual interests, but not an alliance. So really all you're on about is what Italy did before it became a member of the Axis. Certainly wrong of them, but then France and Spain also used chemical weapons in Africa. Does that mean the Allies did in fact use CW since France later became an Allied power?