Originally Posted by Xracer
However, poison gas was outlawed internationally after WWI....and at the time of WWII, we were a nation that followed the International Laws of Warfare.
From the perspective of today, where the present administration doesn't feel it has to follow any rules.....I agree with FDR.
It is indeed a tough call, X. It is worthwhile to note, however, that most of the so-called "rules of war" went down the toilet--on both sides--nearly as soon as war was declared, not the least of which was the outlawed use of unrestricted submarine warfare and the prosecution of war directly against civilians population centers. In Europe, both sides were thoroughly prepared to use gas, and frankly, I'm somewhat surprised the Germans didn't use it in the Battle of the Bulge or during the last, desperate days before the fall of Berlin. My primary focus when I posed the question, however, was if its use against strictly military targets--such as on Iwo Jima--might have made some sense, even at the cost of political fallout. I'm far from convinced as well that if invasion of the Japanese Home Islands had taken place in late '45 as scheduled, the Japanese--or at least some of the more fanatical military leaders--would not have resorted to gas weapons in a last ditch attempt to stave off final defeat. I find it ironic as well that, in the end, we used (quite justifiably, in my opinion) a weapon far more devastating and horrible than even gas to finally end the war. A final point as well: would the use of gas have really been any more barbaric than the fire bombings that were in fact used against both Germany and Japan, on Tokyo and Hamburg, for example?