• Sean Spicer just said that "Even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons"

  • Discuss current events / serious things here. Needless flaming / idiocy are grounds for banning.
Discuss current events / serious things here. Needless flaming / idiocy are grounds for banning.
 #4972  by PlusCaChange
 Tue Apr 11, 2017 4:48 pm
I think you should get your fact checker to go over this statement.
I wasn't thinking of raw numbers, as a percentage of the earths population the Mongols win there hands down. I was think more of killing people to no purpose a rational person would regard as sane. Previous mass murderers generally just wanted to assert control. If you were compliant they might rob and enslave you but they wouldn't exterminate you. Hitler and Pol Pot killed people just because they were not the sort of people they wanted around.
 #4980  by Hakik
 Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:30 pm
PlusCaChange wrote:
Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:11 pm


Do you have a source for that? Because everything I'm reading says they never deployed anything on the battlefield.
You're just reading lazy summaries of history. They probably said that so they don't have to go into details, because for the most part the policy was to avoid poison gases, and when it was used, it wasn't historically significant, or just ended up not making it to the battlefield. The Battle of Kerch Peninsula was one exception, where they cleared out the Soviet defenses with poison gas. On top of that, there were instances where poison gas was ordered to be used on the Eastern front, but logistics and the fast Soviet advance kept making it impossible.
 #4981  by Tim_Kerr
 Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:33 pm
Hakik wrote:
Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:30 pm
PlusCaChange wrote:
Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:11 pm


Do you have a source for that? Because everything I'm reading says they never deployed anything on the battlefield.
You're just reading lazy summaries of history. They probably said that so they don't have to go into details, because for the most part the policy was to avoid poison gases, and when it was used, it wasn't historically significant, or just ended up not making it to the battlefield. The Battle of Kerch Peninsula was one exception, where they cleared out the Soviet defenses with poison gas. On top of that, there were instances where poison gas was ordered to be used on the Eastern front, but logistics and the fast Soviet advance kept making it impossible.

It could have been smoke. Some people consider smoke a chemical weapon cause u can smoke people out of tunnels and trenches... :twisted:


:lol: :lol:
Pepsi: That was the biggest PR blunder of the week, year maybe.
United: Hold my beer.
Sean Spicer: LEEEEEEEEEERROOOOOOOY JEEEENNNNNNKINS! :lol: :lol:
 #4985  by PlusCaChange
 Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:54 pm
You're just reading lazy summaries of history.
I've read some pretty detailed accounts, not on this specific question mind you, that's why I wanted a definite source to evaluate.

I know Hitler had stockpiles of chemical weapons but all accounts I've read said he was afraid the allies did as well. Speer said he convinced Hitler not to use them as a last ditch defense of Berlin but who knows if that's true. There was a lot of propaganda coming from all directions.
 #5242  by almostapathetic
 Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:10 am
lemmiwinx wrote:
Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:24 am
Just a thought but could flame throwers be considered chemical weapons? US used them against the Japanese in WWII. After all its flaming chemicals sprayed on opposing forces in war.
That's an accelerant, not meant to be inhaled or absorbed through the skin or poisoned.

Flame thrower < Napalm