Albert Speer's memoirs on Nazis rejecting gas warfare
Recently finished Speer's memoir, Inside the Third Reich. I'll have my own comments on the chemical weapons issue, but in case they're useless, I'll separate out a piece of history from late 1944 (at pp. 413-414 of the paperback):
Hitler, to be sure, had always rejected gas warfare; but now he hinted at a situation conference in headquarters that the use of gas might stop the advance of the Soviet troops. He went on with vague speculations that the West would accept gas warfare against the East because at this stage of the war the British and American governments had an interest in stopping the Russian advance. When no one at the situation conference spoke up in agreement, Hitler did not return to the subject.
Undoubtedly the generals feared the unpredictable consequences.
Hitler, btw, had been temporarily blinded in World War I from a British gas attack.
Posts
14 comments:
But there are NEVER "unpredictable consequences" that arise from interventionism?
Here's an update on Libya, a generally well received intervention:
"Lawlessness and Ruin in Libya"
http://tinyurl.com/pj6ajw9
John Puma
Speer's memoir is very interesting and a useful insight into Hitler's Germany, but suffers from a few problems of accuracy. In particular, there is strong evidence that speer knew that jews were being exterminated.
Dhogaza - yep, that's the problem with memoirs. Anything the author admits that makes him look bad is probably true. Anything he denies, you have to be careful about.
John P - here's what Juan Cole has to say on the same issue:
"And no, these problems of transition would not justify having kept the totalitarian and murderous dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi in place. In fact, many of the extremist fundamentalists were provoked to a life of violence by his oppression.
I have a bad feeling about this."
http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/breaks-loose-libya.html
"yep, that's the problem with memoirs" it's a bit more than that, as he managed to convince the Court at Nuremberg that he had no direct knowledge or role ...
I can't find the source at present but Goering once stated that the Wehrmacht's greater dependence on horses stayed their chemical hand as any retaliatory action by the Allies would have inflicted greater damage....
I'm guessing the Nazi generals were thinking about the Allied air dominance in 1944. The retaliation would've been terrible. Can't imagine what the casualties would've been if we combined urban firebombing with gas attacks.
Churchill planned to use poison gas at the beaches if Hitler invaded.
It would have been justified IMHO if it was the only effective way to prevent a landing.
Toby
PS It is not true that the British gassed rebellious Kurds in the 1920s, though the myth has general circulation. The suggestion was made in Whitehall but never implemented.
Anonymous, on the other hand Britain did use mustard gas in Russia during its failed intervention in the civil war.
I also wonder, if it i right to bomb the government side in Syria because it probably used gas, should the rebels also be bombed as there is indications they too used gas?
Thomas,
I am suspicious of uncited assertions, but I do find in Wikipedia that the British used a chemical irritant (diphenyl chloroarsine, not mustard gas) against Bolshevik troops in 1919.
If the rebels used chemical weapons it would be easier to deal with them by cutting off all assistance from the West. At this point, they are unlikely to undermine their own supporters.
Toby
Anonymous, the wikipedia page on chemical warfare mentions mustard gas as does this story by bbc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1562534.stm
I think the rebels get more support from Arab countries than from the West, but it's not as if anyone is providing accurate numbers, and as long as the West continues to pretend the rebels don't have or couldn't possibly use chemical weapons they are free to use them as much as they want.
Those previous attacks were very small scale - it's not clear they even were chemical attacks and not clear who's responsible. Killing 1,000 people is different.
"Those previous attacks were very small scale - it's not clear they even were chemical attacks and not clear who's responsible. Killing 1,000 people is different."
Oh, the Brirony.
Toby, I think the Wikipedia article is likely wrong in claiming diphenylchloroarsine (referred to as "Blue cross" by the Germans and DA in Allied documents) as the agent dropped in Russia in the Civil War. Its properties make it entirely unsuitable for the claimed use.
It is not a gas, but a solid - in practice, finely powered loads were distributed over a small area by high explosive shell. As a dust it persisted for only a few minutes before settling out and did not spread out much. While it is very effective as a sternutator (vomiting agent) its effects are also very brief. Its lethality was extremely low - the US Army in the First World War suffered 70,000 gas casualties, and only 3 men died direcly from exposure to DA and its variants.
It was very effective for a narrow tactical purpose. Fired in a barrage of mixed agents, it would force men to remove their masks (to vomit) making them vulnerable to the phosgene and mustard that their masks were designed to protect them from. Because it did not persist, it did not cause problems for friendly troops occupying the ground (as mustard did). This was how it was used in World War One. I can't see any value in trying to air drop it against people who are not about to be attacked on the ground.
The British had not succeeded in fabricating DA by the end of 1918, so it seems unlikely that they would have had enough to attack the Bolsheviks with it by 1919, when war production was scaling back. That said, I can't rule out the use of some other agent. Just that DA.
Personally, I think Hitler declined to use gas weapons in WW2 because they were incompatible with the mobile warfare at which the German Army excelled.
FrankD
Ooops - second last para should finish "Just that DA was not likely to be the agent used."
FrankD
Post a Comment