Soviets initiate chemical weapon use in 1941

[ATP]

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

No.Sralin wanted it till 1943 in OTL,but Hitler always refused.You must kill Hitler for that to work.

 

[stevep]

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.

I didn't. I just pointed out what your said and the logical flaws in your comments.

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.

Legally they could have used gas weapons and at least some of their plans for attacks on Canada did include such use. It was convenient for the US not to use chemical weapons, at least outside Vietnam so they didn't.

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:

I wouldn't say no one complained. Just no one in a position of influence were willing to pay the price of complaining.

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

Agreed.

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

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 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

Think I've got a copy of the book somewhere - haven't looked at it for decades - but if I get the chance I will try and dig it up.

Doubtful to say that national survival was more at stake for Germany in 1944 than Britain in 1940. Plus it was a viable - albeit very risky option for Britain in 1940 but would have been an even bigger disaster for Germany in 1944.

I did once read a reference that Hitler did order such use against the Soviets during the last stages of the war but they looked at the probable results and decided to ignore him. Unfortunately there was no reference to the source so no information on how accurate or not it was.

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?

Technically correct but fascist Italy did use chemical weapons against an internationally recognised state - as opposed to rebels in territory internationally recognised as theirs - and it was the same state that then joined the conflict in alliance with Nazi Germany.

The wiki article on the Rif War mentions Spain using chemical weapons but nothing on their use by France.