Quoted Text

---

Nic--I am curious as to your statement on morality.

---

He he. Sorry for inadvertently changing the topic of this thread, DJ.

Here's a question that I don't know the answer to. Does morality have a place in the practice of history? Can we look at morality entirely through the perspective of the time we are studying (or do we have to)? How important is it, even? Would such a study tell us anything? Is a moral study as valuable to us as analysing the how and why and its effects?

Anyway, that's what I was getting at. Sorry that my little side-note stirred up so much off-topic debate.

Nic

Current events forum? Heck, rereading this thread we might need a "Philosophic Anthropology Forum" I would almost bet tomorrow's check that the "Augustine Doctrine" has never been mentioned on any other modelling web site. This is an outstanding read. Thanks everyone!

Shaun

All of this hand wringing and revisionist historical thinking does not negate the first statement. When at war you use what you have. This holds true of the enemy too. I doubt very much whether Germany or Japan would have hesitated in dropping an A-Bomb in WWII if they had built it first.

DJ,

Maybe there were enough German staff officers who had seen the results of the gas attacks in the First World War to keep the chemical genie in the bottle during the Second? Almost a cultural shift as a result of there use?

Just a thought.

Shaun

The other thing that bothers me about this is that Germany had numerous restriction placed on it regarding military strenghts and i am willing to gamble that large scale production of chemical and biological warfare agents wasn't allowed under the World War one peace treaty.
James

Quoted Text

---

The other thing that bothers me about this is that Germany had numerous restriction placed on it regarding military strenghts and i am willing to gamble that large scale production of chemical and biological warfare agents wasn't allowed under the World War one peace treaty.
James

---

Interesting idea...but. Battleships, tanks and fighter aircraft were also denied the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles.

My guess is that chemicals just aren't all that effective, and certianly were less so 60-70 years ago.

Yup, drop it.

In Heinz Guderian's book Achtung-Panzer!, he actually has a rather favourable view on the use of gas. It appears that when he published his book in 1937, Guderian believed gas would still play a role in the next war and he basically argues that gas, used in quantity and with surprise, can achieve great results. Of course, Guderian's book was really about the use of tanks and he saw these as far more useful on the offensive than gas. He notes that gas ultimately slows down the offensive and its use requires too many factors to be in place to make it a war winning weapon. I think Hitler may have had more to do with the decision not to use gas than his subordinates. It is folly to assume that everyone acts rationally or follows the same logic all the time. Hitler might have been able to kill millions without flinching (using gas in some death camps I believe), but the thought of Allied retaliation to a German gas attack may have indeed prevented him from ordering one. He was gased himself in the First World War and, to many accounts, was terrified of the stuff.

Nic