2 ms·

World War II didn't have gas because it was tactically and strategically useless, not because of international conventions. Mass bombing and firebombing of civi

World War II didn't have gas because it was tactically and strategically useless, not because of international conventions. Mass bombing and firebombing of civilian targets contravenes international conventions too, but that didn't perceptibly slow anyone down, especially after the Axis powers very helpfully did it first. Ultimately there are no laws in war save vae victis, and while I believe the attribution of the idea to Bismarck is only apocryphal, I agree that the best and only way to curtail the brutality of warfare is to make war with maximum intensity in the cause of making war maximally short - if you can possibly manage it, by not having a war at all. I think Americans are unable to really understand this, and I think that's because our history offers only two examples, none remotely within living memory, of what it's like to have a war here. It's easy for us to think about making war because, with the exception of those who actually participate and are no longer conscripted in any case - and thus whatever happens to them can be trivially written off by those inclined as "what they signed up for" - we never have to fear that anyone will bring war home. Hitler couldn't even get an invasion across the English Channel; who's going to get one across an ocean? The sole exception is nuclear warfare via intercontinental missile, and indeed we find this a uniquely horrifying concept in the American psyche, even now. In theory that's because of radiation, but I don't think that's so; I think it is because that's the only plausible mechanism by which we need fear anyone bombing our cities, and that is something we never needed fear before. And it is worthy of note that, whatever the diplomatic exertions required to ensure this does not occur, we have always been willing to pursue them as tirelessly as the occasion has required.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> Ultimately there are no laws in war save vae victis, and while I believe the attribution of the idea to Bismarck is only apocryphal, I agree that the best and only way to curtail the brutality of warfare is to make war with maximum intensity in the cause of making war maximally short - if you can possibly manage it, by not having a war at all. I agree. Pretending that we can have a “clean” war just makes war more likely and makes wars drag on ultimately killing even more people and causing more destruction in the long term.
usrusr 5y ago
"World War II didn't have gas because it was tactically and strategically useless" Do you really believe that? That would imply that if one side side started doing it, the other would have just laughed at their waste of resources and continue enjoying the benefits of doing without. I don't think that this is what would have happened. Tactical and strategical situations weren't as "inviting" for gas attacks as the endless stalemates of ww1, but useless? I don't think so. The game of eye for an eye does not need any international conventions. An important caveat in all intensity for shortness tradeoffs is that the entire argument breaks down if the change can be negated by the other side doing the same.
- throwanem 5y ago
  > Do you really believe that? Yes. Why not? I mentioned the firebombing of cities earlier. Fire makes more fire, but gas doesn't make more gas. That disposes of strategic utility, and on the tactical side, mobile warfare in armored vehicles largely obviates any benefit. Besides, it's not like, in total warfare, the production of chemical weapons at industrial scale doesn't require resources that could otherwise be put to purposes and weapons that aren't so narrowly contingent in their potential benefits - for one example, incendiaries. > That would imply that if one side started doing it, the other would have just laughed at their waste of resources and continue enjoying the benefits of doing without. No, it wouldn't; of course if one side had started doing it others would have matched the escalation, just as with strategic bombing. Why do you think no side started? I like to hope at this point we've disposed of the idea that it was out of the goodness of their hearts.
philwelch 5y ago
I have a few points to make here: World War II did have gas. Japan used chemical weapons in China. Setting that aside for a moment, the various theaters of war did not all immediately escalate to total war all at once. Rules of war were initially followed but selectively abandoned over time when one side or the other also abandoned either the same rule or a complementary rule. For example, consider treatment of POW’s. There are complementary international laws at work here: it’s a war crime to kill a surrendering enemy rather than take them prisoner, but it’s also a war crime (perfidy) to falsely surrender only as a ruse to kill your would-be captors. After running into enough Japanese perfidy (and very little genuine Japanese surrender), American troops in the Pacific stopped bothering with taking prisoners. This was dramatically different from what would happen in theatres such as North Africa. You also mention strategic bombing, but that was also a story of tit-for-tat escalation, aided along by genuine targeting mishaps. The Germans notably refrained from civilian targets during the early Battle of Britain, only to embrace terror bombing during the Blitz. This escalation was supposedly a response to some British bombing raids that, supposedly by accident, hit civilian targets in Germany. When it comes to gas, the reason it wasn’t used outside of China was because no one had an incentive to escalate to that particular measure. Germany didn’t use gas because if they did, the retaliation would have devastated them—German logistics were overwhelmingly horse-centric and Germany did not have anywhere near enough gas masks for their horses. The Soviets didn’t use gas because Germany had a well known advantage in chemical warfare and they didn’t want to invite Germany to retaliate with gas. The western Allies didn’t use gas because they, unlike the Axis and Soviets, did not generally violate the laws of war unless the enemy violated them first. As another general point, many of the war crimes committed in World War II were purely evil to the point of counterproductivity. For instance, mistreating and murdering prisoners of war eliminates any incentive for the enemy to surrender, while terror bombing usually makes enemy populations more rather than less motivated to continue supporting the war effort.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

> Ultimately there are no laws in war save vae victis, and while I believe the attribution of the idea to Bismarck is only apocryphal, I agree that the best and only way to curtail the brutality of warfare is to make war with maximum intensity in the cause of making war maximally short - if you can possibly manage it, by not having a war at all. I agree. Pretending that we can have a “clean” war just makes war more likely and makes wars drag on ultimately killing even more people and causing more destruction in the long term.

usrusr 5y ago

"World War II didn't have gas because it was tactically and strategically useless" Do you really believe that? That would imply that if one side side started doing it, the other would have just laughed at their waste of resources and continue enjoying the benefits of doing without. I don't think that this is what would have happened. Tactical and strategical situations weren't as "inviting" for gas attacks as the endless stalemates of ww1, but useless? I don't think so. The game of eye for an eye does not need any international conventions. An important caveat in all intensity for shortness tradeoffs is that the entire argument breaks down if the change can be negated by the other side doing the same.

throwanem 5y ago
> Do you really believe that? Yes. Why not? I mentioned the firebombing of cities earlier. Fire makes more fire, but gas doesn't make more gas. That disposes of strategic utility, and on the tactical side, mobile warfare in armored vehicles largely obviates any benefit. Besides, it's not like, in total warfare, the production of chemical weapons at industrial scale doesn't require resources that could otherwise be put to purposes and weapons that aren't so narrowly contingent in their potential benefits - for one example, incendiaries. > That would imply that if one side started doing it, the other would have just laughed at their waste of resources and continue enjoying the benefits of doing without. No, it wouldn't; of course if one side had started doing it others would have matched the escalation, just as with strategic bombing. Why do you think no side started? I like to hope at this point we've disposed of the idea that it was out of the goodness of their hearts.

philwelch 5y ago

I have a few points to make here: World War II did have gas. Japan used chemical weapons in China. Setting that aside for a moment, the various theaters of war did not all immediately escalate to total war all at once. Rules of war were initially followed but selectively abandoned over time when one side or the other also abandoned either the same rule or a complementary rule. For example, consider treatment of POW’s. There are complementary international laws at work here: it’s a war crime to kill a surrendering enemy rather than take them prisoner, but it’s also a war crime (perfidy) to falsely surrender only as a ruse to kill your would-be captors. After running into enough Japanese perfidy (and very little genuine Japanese surrender), American troops in the Pacific stopped bothering with taking prisoners. This was dramatically different from what would happen in theatres such as North Africa. You also mention strategic bombing, but that was also a story of tit-for-tat escalation, aided along by genuine targeting mishaps. The Germans notably refrained from civilian targets during the early Battle of Britain, only to embrace terror bombing during the Blitz. This escalation was supposedly a response to some British bombing raids that, supposedly by accident, hit civilian targets in Germany. When it comes to gas, the reason it wasn’t used outside of China was because no one had an incentive to escalate to that particular measure. Germany didn’t use gas because if they did, the retaliation would have devastated them—German logistics were overwhelmingly horse-centric and Germany did not have anywhere near enough gas masks for their horses. The Soviets didn’t use gas because Germany had a well known advantage in chemical warfare and they didn’t want to invite Germany to retaliate with gas. The western Allies didn’t use gas because they, unlike the Axis and Soviets, did not generally violate the laws of war unless the enemy violated them first. As another general point, many of the war crimes committed in World War II were purely evil to the point of counterproductivity. For instance, mistreating and murdering prisoners of war eliminates any incentive for the enemy to surrender, while terror bombing usually makes enemy populations more rather than less motivated to continue supporting the war effort.