"All sensible Army people turned gas warfare down as being utterly insane since, in view of your superiority in the air, it would not be long before it would bring the most terrible catastrophe upon German cities, which were completely unprotected"

Albert Speer’s words reflect a pragmatic, even grim, appraisal of chemical warfare during the latter stages of World War II. With the Allies gaining control of the skies over Europe, he points out that any German initiative to escalate to gas warfare would be an act of self-destruction. The notion of gas warfare evokes the horrors of the First World War, where both sides suffered immense casualties and trauma from chemical agents. However, by the time of Speer’s writing, military leaders recognized that the strategic situation had changed drastically: the Allies possessed overwhelming air superiority, granting them the capacity to retaliate swiftly and on a devastating scale.

The mention of “sensible Army people” distancing themselves from the idea underscores the rational calculus at work. Despite the ideological fervor and desperation that marked Nazi decision-making in the war’s final months, there remained individuals within the German military who understood the real dangers of escalating to weapons of mass destruction. They saw, with clear-eyed realism, that German cities would bear the brunt of any retaliation, lacking both adequate shelters and anti-aircraft defenses. Cities like Hamburg, Dresden, and Berlin, already battered by conventional bombing, faced total annihilation if chemical weapons entered the conflict.

Speer’s language, describing the use of gas as “utterly insane,” is significant. It recognizes not only the military futility but also the moral void of resorting to such methods. At a fundamental level, the prospect of German urban centers becoming the targets for gas attacks served as a deterrent stronger than ethical contemplation; the survival instinct of the nation’s cities outweighed any potential gain.

By underscoring this restraint, Speer implicitly comments on the threshold of catastrophe that total war brings, the moment when even the architects of destruction pause, confronted by the specter of reciprocal devastation beyond any strategic value. The argument becomes less about policy and more about the existential peril of mutual annihilation.