[Thoss]

In the last weeks of the Second World War on the Eastern front when the two Soviet Army groups had reached the Oder River, why did the Nazis not resort to using chemical or biological weapons to at least hinder the advance of Soviet Armies closing in on Berlin?

The Soviets certainly expected that the Nazis would do so as they made efforts to prepare for such an attack.

And Indeed, the Nazi leadership often boasted in the waining years of the war about 'Superweapons' that would save the Reich - why were not chemical or biological weapons part of their super-weapon arsenal?


Was it merely the case that Hitler, on account of his experience with the weapons in the First World War, forbade their use? Or was it that the weapons given the distribution of gas masks and other countermeasures would have been a waste of energy? But certainly, given the Nazis, the SS and the Wehrmacht's propensity for criminal behaviour(not uncommon among other powers - yes) I can't see a moral argument against chemical weapons coming from the Germans, especially when the soviets were at their gates.

[Darth Tanner]

The Soviets certainly expected that the Nazis would do so as they made efforts to prepare for such an attack

The answer to your own question. Chemical weapons were practically useless if the attacking force were prepared for them. Combined with the massive cost and difficulty in deploying the things over a battlefield there's not much point in bothering with them unless you consider yourself to have a good chance of catching your enemy or his civilians unprepared.

Also as I understand it the Nazis mistakenly thought the British knew all about their breakthroughs in chemical warfare technology and chose not to pursue production or deployment for fear of retaliation. See the 1943 Bari incident where allied stockpiled chemical weapons were mistakenly released during a bombing raid for example which were only intended for use if Germany started using them first.

[Thunderhawk]

why did the Nazis not resort to using chemical or biological weapons to at least hinder the advance of Soviet Armies closing in on Berlin?

Enemy concentration.
How much bio/chem weapons could they make in time to be effective?
What would they target? - the Soviets army was broad, not just spear heads+support. Furthermore, they could move back a bit, spread out, etc.. Chemical weapons could kill tens of thousands, cripple more, and buy a bit of time. But how much resources would that take up?
And that assumes the allies dont respond in kind - and the Nazis were far more susceptable to them, as they relied on concentrated forces and were already loosing due to attrition.

[InterestedInPolitics]

Was it merely the case that Hitler, on account of his experience with the weapons in the First World War, forbade their use? Or was it that the weapons given the distribution of gas masks and other countermeasures would have been a waste of energy? But certainly, given the Nazis, the SS and the Wehrmacht's propensity for criminal behaviour(not uncommon among other powers - yes) I can't see a moral argument against chemical weapons coming from the Germans, especially when the soviets were at their gates.

Personally, I believe it is because Hitler was exposed to chemical weapons in World War I. Even if an army is trained in chemical warfare and has proper protection, the chemical weapons are still effective against an army prepared for such warfare as it will still inflict casualties, psychological damage on the attacking troops from witnessing chemical weapons casualties and the fact that the protective gear can be a hinderance to soldiers who are in combat, even if they train very hard constantly wearing such gear during peacetime. Even with consistent, constant around the clock training in preparation for getting hit with real chemical weapons, it will still inevitably be a nasty affair even for the best trained armies who have trained constantly for it. So, personally, because Hitler had seen chemical warfare and how terrible it is, despite all the evil things he had done, he still did not want to expose other soldiers to the same horror. And Germany during World War I was quite well trained for chemical warfare and both sides still sufferred terribly from it's use. As well, the Germans had little to lose at the end of World War II by using such weapons.

[pontifexmax]

Personally, I believe it was more an issue of disobediance. The generals most likely ordered somekind of retalitory strike with chemicals and/or biological weaponry; but by this time (the march on Berlin) Nazi soldier's themselves were tired of fighting. They were not as ideological convinced as their upper ranked commanders. IMHO, the German soldiers wanted not to piss off the Soviets royally by using chemical weaponry. Imagine the Soviet reaction if they had been gassed, then captured Berlin (as they would have anyway). Not pretty I'd imagine...