The idea that Hitler would have objected to using poison gas on the battlefield on ethical grounds may seem blatantly inconsistent with the fact that Nazis were systematically using Zyklon B and other chemical agents to exterminate millions of people in the gas chambers. But even setting this aside, there’s little to no solid historical evidence linking Hitler’s wartime experience to his reluctance to use sarin against the Allies 20 years later.
Other factors may have been involved. Germany’s Blitzkrieg military strategy, which had so far been successful, involved sudden attacks by tanks and bombers followed swiftly by invading foot soldiers. If those bombers used sarin or another chemical weapon, they would have contaminated the same area their troops would then have had to march into.
VIDEO: What is XV Nerve Agent? Learn the sinister history behind the lethal chemical agent that killed the half-brother of an infamous dictator.
More importantly, perhaps, Hitler must have known that if he used chemical weapons, his adversaries would retaliate in kind. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, for one, had long argued in favor of the use of such weapons to shorten military conflicts. “I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas,” he wrote in a memo in 1919, when he was Britain’s secretary of war. “It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”
Historian Richard Langworth has emphasized that Churchill believed using (non-lethal) chemical weapons could actually be a more humane way of doing battle. In another memo written around the same time, Churchill argued: “Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war.”