What If The Geneva Protocol Was Never Signed?

The Actual History

In the aftermath of World War I (1914-1918), the international community was profoundly shaken by the unprecedented use of chemical weapons during the conflict. The war had introduced large-scale chemical warfare to modern battlefields, with devastating consequences. Germany first deployed chlorine gas at the Second Battle of Ypres in April 1915, catching Allied forces completely unprepared. This was followed by the use of phosgene and, most notoriously, mustard gas by both sides. By the war's end, chemical weapons had caused approximately 1.3 million casualties, including around 90,000 deaths.

The horror of chemical warfare created significant international pressure for arms control. In February 1925, the League of Nations sponsored an international conference on the control of the international arms trade in Geneva, Switzerland. During this conference, the Polish delegation proposed a protocol to prohibit the use of poisonous gases in warfare. The United States suggested expanding this ban to include bacteriological (biological) warfare, which was incorporated into the final agreement.

On June 17, 1925, the "Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare"—commonly known as the Geneva Protocol—was signed by 38 nations. The protocol prohibited "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" as well as "bacteriological methods of warfare."

The Geneva Protocol represented a significant advancement in international humanitarian law and arms control. However, it had notable limitations. Critically, it did not prohibit the development, production, or stockpiling of chemical or biological weapons—only their use in warfare. Additionally, many signatories, including the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, ratified the protocol with reservations that they would respect the prohibition only in conflicts with other parties to the protocol and retained the right to retaliate in kind if attacked with chemical weapons.

Despite these limitations, the Geneva Protocol established a powerful international norm against chemical and biological warfare. This norm was largely respected during World War II, despite the extensive preparation for chemical warfare by all major belligerents. While there were instances of chemical weapons use in more limited conflicts (such as Italy's use in Ethiopia in 1935-36 and Japan's use in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War), World War II did not see chemical warfare on the Western Front or between major powers.

The taboo against chemical weapons established by the Geneva Protocol was later strengthened by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which expanded prohibitions to include development, production, stockpiling, and transfer of these weapons. Though violations have occurred, including in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Syria's civil war, and isolated terrorist incidents, the near-universal condemnation of chemical and biological weapons stands as one of the most successful examples of international arms control, with roots in the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Geneva Protocol was never signed? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the 1925 international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare failed to materialize, leaving a critical gap in international humanitarian law throughout the 20th century.

There are several plausible mechanisms through which this divergence might have occurred:

First, the political will to establish chemical weapons prohibitions might have dissipated amid the competing priorities of post-WWI reconstruction. In our timeline, the horror of chemical warfare during WWI created momentum for arms control. However, if key advocates like the Polish delegation had focused on different security concerns, or if the American delegation had not proposed expanding the ban to include biological warfare, the protocol might never have gained sufficient support.

Alternatively, the conference might have stalled over the issue of enforcement mechanisms. In our timeline, the protocol was criticized for lacking verification or enforcement provisions. In this alternate timeline, the major powers could have insisted on more robust enforcement measures that proved impossible to negotiate, ultimately leading to the collapse of the talks.

A third possibility involves changes in domestic politics in key signatory nations. If the United States, the United Kingdom, or France had experienced stronger domestic opposition to international arms control in the isolationist 1920s, their delegations might have withdrawn support. Without the leadership of major powers, the protocol might have failed to achieve critical mass.

Finally, the protocol might have been rendered irrelevant by contemporaneous events before it could be signed. If a significant international incident involving chemical agents had occurred during the negotiations (such as a terrorist attack or border skirmish), it might have hardened positions and made compromise impossible.

In this alternate timeline, regardless of the specific mechanism, the Geneva Conference of 1925 concludes without producing a protocol on chemical and biological warfare. The international community thus enters the turbulent decades ahead without even the limited protections against these weapons that our timeline established, setting the stage for potentially profound differences in military doctrine, international relations, and the conduct of future conflicts.

Immediate Aftermath

Military Doctrine Development (1925-1935)

The absence of the Geneva Protocol created immediate ripple effects across military establishments worldwide. Without international restrictions on chemical warfare, military powers continued their chemical weapons programs with increased openness and funding.

In Germany, despite the limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, clandestine chemical weapons research continued but now faced less international scrutiny or moral condemnation. German scientists who had pioneered chemical warfare during WWI could operate with fewer professional ethical constraints. By the early 1930s, as the Nazi party rose to power, this expertise would be harnessed with particular enthusiasm.

The Soviet Union, already engaged in chemical weapons development through collaboration with Germany (established in the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo), expanded these efforts significantly. By 1930, the Red Army integrated chemical warfare into its standard training regimen and doctrine to a much greater extent than in our timeline.

In Britain, France, and the United States, chemical corps maintained higher profiles and budgets. The U.S. Chemical Warfare Service, which faced potential disbandment in our timeline, instead received expanded funding. British and French military doctrines incorporated chemical warfare as a standard operational capability rather than a measure of last resort.

Japan, building its imperial ambitions in Asia, developed an aggressive chemical and biological weapons program centered around Unit 731 in Manchuria. Without even the limited international stigma of the Geneva Protocol, these programs expanded more rapidly and with less secrecy than in our timeline.

International Relations and Diplomacy (1925-1935)

The failure to reach consensus on chemical weapons significantly damaged the already fragile League of Nations. This early collapse of multilateral arms control efforts reinforced isolationist tendencies, particularly in the United States, where opponents of international entanglements pointed to the failed negotiations as evidence that European security problems should remain European.

Diplomatic relations between former WWI enemies deteriorated more rapidly without this successful example of post-war cooperation. The absence of the Geneva Protocol removed one of the few functioning areas of international consensus in the interwar period, accelerating the breakdown of collective security mechanisms.

By the early 1930s, arms control became virtually nonexistent as a diplomatic priority. When the World Disarmament Conference convened in Geneva in February 1932, negotiators faced an even more pessimistic landscape than in our timeline. The conference's failure came more quickly and completely, further destabilizing international relations as Hitler rose to power in Germany.

Early Deployments and Normalization (1935-1939)

The most immediate practical consequence emerged during Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. In our timeline, Mussolini's forces used chemical weapons despite Italy's ratification of the Geneva Protocol, causing international outcry. In this alternate timeline, Italy employed chemical weapons more extensively and systematically against Ethiopian forces, but faced substantially less diplomatic condemnation for doing so.

This Ethiopian precedent proved catastrophic during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Both Nationalist and Republican forces, supported by their respective international backers, employed chemical weapons in what effectively became a testing ground for chemical warfare doctrines. German Condor Legion units deployed advanced chemical agents against Republican strongholds, while Soviet advisors assisted with Republican chemical retaliation efforts. The conflict, already a humanitarian disaster in our timeline, saw civilian casualties rise dramatically.

In the Second Sino-Japanese War, which began in 1937, Japanese forces deployed chemical weapons much more extensively than in our timeline. The battle for Shanghai featured the first large-scale urban chemical warfare, with devastating effects on civilian populations. Chinese forces, lacking both protective equipment and chemical retaliatory capability, suffered immense casualties, further accelerating Japan's early conquests.

By 1939, major military powers had fully integrated chemical warfare into their strategic planning. Gas masks became standard equipment for both military personnel and civilian populations in Europe. Civil defense programs in Britain, France, and Germany conducted regular drills for chemical attacks. The militarization of civilian life accelerated dramatically as gas-proof shelters and decontamination procedures became community standards across Europe and East Asia.

As tensions mounted toward World War II, the psychological impact of anticipated chemical warfare created a profound sense of dread. When Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, the world held its breath expecting not only conventional bombing but also chemical attacks on civilian centers—a horrific possibility that seemed all but inevitable in a world where no international convention stood against it.

Long-term Impact

World War II: The Chemical Conflict (1939-1945)

The absence of the Geneva Protocol fundamentally altered the nature of World War II. While our timeline saw the conflict largely free of chemical warfare between major powers (despite all sides being prepared for it), this alternate timeline experienced chemical weapons deployment as a standard element of military operations.

The European Theater

The German invasion of Poland in 1939 included targeted chemical attacks against Polish defensive positions and several cities. The swift collapse of Polish resistance was accelerated by Poland's limited chemical protection capabilities. This early "success" reinforced the German military's incorporation of chemical weapons into its blitzkrieg doctrine.

During the invasion of France in 1940, German forces deployed chemical agents primarily to neutralize the Maginot Line defenses. The French and British, equally equipped for chemical warfare, retaliated in kind, but their disorganized retreat made effective chemical defense nearly impossible. Chemical contamination of large areas of northern France created civilian humanitarian disasters and complicated eventual Allied reconquest.

The Battle of Britain took on a different character as the Luftwaffe included chemical payloads among their ordnance dropped on British cities. London's extensive underground shelter system became critical for civilian survival, but chemical agents seeping into some underground spaces caused several mass-casualty events that remain among the most traumatic memories of the British war experience.

On the Eastern Front, the scale of chemical warfare reached unprecedented levels. Both German and Soviet forces employed chemical weapons extensively, particularly during major engagements like the Battle of Stalingrad and Operation Bagration. The harsh climate created unique challenges for chemical warfare—extreme cold weather limiting the effectiveness of some agents while creating new problems for troops wearing protective gear. Soviet numerical superiority was partially offset by Germany's more advanced chemical arsenal, extending the conflict and increasing casualties dramatically.

The Pacific Theater

The Pacific War saw distinctive applications of chemical warfare. Japanese forces, building on their experience in China, deployed chemical weapons during island invasions. The dense jungle environments of Southeast Asia proved particularly suitable for persistent chemical agents, creating lasting contamination that affected military operations and civilian populations for years.

The 1942 Battle of Midway became notable not only as a turning point in naval warfare but also as the first major engagement involving ship-launched chemical weapons, with both American and Japanese vessels equipped to deploy chemical shells against enemy fleets.

As American forces began their island-hopping campaign toward the Japanese mainland, they increasingly employed chemical weapons to reduce casualties during amphibious landings. The battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa, already among the bloodiest in our timeline, saw systematic chemical deployment to clear deeply entrenched Japanese positions.

The Nuclear Endpoint

By 1945, the Manhattan Project still delivered atomic weapons, but in this timeline, they were seen less as a revolutionary new type of warfare and more as simply the most powerful in an existing spectrum of mass destruction weapons. The psychological barrier to their use was lower in a world already accustomed to chemical mass casualties. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, military planners immediately began conceptualizing combined chemical-nuclear operations for future conflicts.

The Cold War: Chemical Deterrence (1945-1991)

Doctrine of Mass Destruction

The Cold War emerged with a different strategic framework than in our timeline. Rather than a relatively clear nuclear deterrence model, a more complex "spectrum of mass destruction" dominated military thinking, with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons each having specific strategic roles.

By the 1950s, both NATO and Warsaw Pact forces maintained massive chemical weapons stockpiles deployed throughout Europe. Chemical weapons were fully integrated into war planning as tactical battlefield options rather than weapons of last resort. Civil defense programs in both East and West included extensive chemical protection measures alongside nuclear preparations.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 included an often-overlooked chemical dimension in this timeline. In addition to nuclear missiles, the Soviet Union had deployed significant chemical warfare capabilities to Cuba. The resolution of the crisis included secret agreements on chemical weapons limitations that historians would only discover decades later.

Chemical weapons proliferation became a significant concern as decolonization created new nations throughout the developing world. Chemical weapons, cheaper and technologically simpler than nuclear options, became the "poor nation's weapon of mass destruction." By 1970, over 40 nations possessed offensive chemical weapons capabilities, compared to fewer than 10 with nuclear weapons.

Limited Conflicts and Proxy Wars

The absence of even limited chemical warfare taboos led to their regular deployment in conflicts throughout the Cold War period. The Korean War (1950-1953) saw American forces employ chemical weapons against North Korean and Chinese troops in the Chosin Reservoir campaign and other key battles.

In the Vietnam War, Operation Ranch Hand expanded beyond defoliants like Agent Orange to include more direct chemical warfare agents. The Ho Chi Minh Trail was repeatedly subjected to chemical attack, while North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces employed Soviet-supplied chemical weapons against South Vietnamese and American positions.

The various Arab-Israeli conflicts became particularly notorious for chemical warfare exchanges. The 1967 Six-Day War included chemical attacks against Egyptian forces in the Sinai, while the 1973 Yom Kippur War saw more extensive chemical weapons use by both sides. These Middle Eastern precedents normalized chemical warfare in regional conflicts, with devastating consequences during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), which saw chemical casualties in the hundreds of thousands rather than the tens of thousands in our timeline.

Technological Development and Proliferation

Without international conventions limiting research, chemical weapons technology advanced rapidly. By the 1960s, the development of binary chemical weapons (where two relatively safe chemicals combine during deployment to form lethal agents) made handling and storage significantly safer for the possessor. The V-series of nerve agents, developed in the 1950s, gave way to more advanced compounds known as the G-Plus and X-series by the 1970s.

The absence of the Chemical Weapons Convention (which in our timeline wasn't achieved until 1993) meant that commercial chemical industries remained closely integrated with military chemical weapons programs. This accelerated technological development but created significant risks of dual-use technology proliferation.

The Post-Cold War World (1991-2025)

The New World Disorder

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 created unprecedented chemical weapons security challenges. While loose nuclear materials received significant international attention in our timeline, in this alternate world, unsecured chemical weapons stockpiles presented a more immediate proliferation threat. Several former Soviet republics found themselves unwilling possessors of massive chemical arsenals they could neither securely maintain nor safely destroy.

Terrorist acquisition of chemical weapons became reality rather than fear. The 1995 Tokyo subway attack, carried out by Aum Shinrikyo using sarin in our timeline, was just one of dozens of chemical terrorism incidents between 1990-2010. Several non-state actors established chemical weapons capabilities, with ISIS using captured Syrian government stockpiles particularly effectively during its territorial expansion in 2014-2015.

Attempts at Control

Not until the early 2000s did serious international chemical weapons control efforts gain traction. The 2005 Global Chemical Security Convention, roughly analogous to our timeline's 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, finally established international mechanisms to prohibit chemical weapons. However, coming nearly 80 years after the failed 1925 negotiations, this belated effort faced enormous challenges.

By this point, over 60 nations possessed chemical weapons capabilities, and chemical warfare was an established element of military doctrine worldwide. The 2005 convention succeeded in eliminating the most dangerous agents from the arsenals of signatory nations, but verification remained problematic, and several key states refused to join.

Environmental and Public Health Legacy

The environmental consequences of decades of unregulated chemical weapons testing, deployment, and disposal created public health crises across the globe. Entire regions became uninhabitable due to chemical contamination. The Baltic Sea floor, where Germany and the Soviet Union dumped chemical weapons after WWII, experienced repeated ecological disasters as deteriorating containers leaked their contents.

Medical science, driven by military necessity, developed more effective treatments for chemical exposure. Civilian applications of these advances improved care for industrial chemical accidents. However, the prevalence of chemical warfare injuries created enormous public health burdens, particularly in regions that experienced multiple chemical conflicts.

Contemporary Status (2025)

By 2025 in this timeline, the international norm against chemical weapons use remains fragile. While major powers have ostensibly eliminated offensive chemical programs, many maintain "defensive research" that could quickly convert to weapons production. Chemical terrorism remains a persistent threat, with sophisticated detection systems now standard features of public infrastructure in major cities worldwide.

Military units worldwide still train extensively for chemical warfare environments, and civilian chemical protection remains a significant component of disaster preparedness programs. The psychological impact of living with the persistent threat of chemical warfare has shaped architecture, urban planning, and social psychology in ways that would seem alien to citizens of our timeline.

The absence of the 1925 Geneva Protocol thus created not just an alternate military history, but an entirely different relationship between human society and the terror of weaponized chemistry—a relationship that continues to shape global affairs a century after the point of divergence.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Jean-Michel Valois, Professor of International Law at Sciences Po and former legal advisor to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, offers this perspective: "The Geneva Protocol of 1925, for all its limitations, established what we might call a 'normative firebreak' in international humanitarian law. Without this early prohibition, chemical warfare would have likely become normalized through the crucible of World War II. What's fascinating about this counterfactual scenario is not just the tactical differences in how wars would have been fought, but how the absence of even limited moral constraints against one category of weapons might have undermined the development of wider humanitarian restrictions in warfare. The taboo against chemical weapons in our timeline created a conceptual foundation for later restrictions on biological and radiological weapons. Without that initial moral framework, the entire architecture of weapons of mass destruction control might never have developed."

Dr. Sarah Henderson, Military Historian at the Royal United Services Institute, provides a different analysis: "The interwar chemical arms race that would have occurred without the Geneva Protocol would have dramatically altered force structures and military planning. Nations would have diverted significant resources toward chemical weapons development, production, and defense that were allocated elsewhere in our timeline. Paradoxically, this might have reduced conventional and even nuclear arms spending, as chemical weapons offered a 'cheaper' path to strategic deterrence for many nations. The battlefield consequences would have been profound, but equally important would be the civil defense implications. Imagine every major city requiring the kind of extensive chemical protection infrastructure that only a few, like Helsinki with its civil defense shelters, developed in our world. The psychological effect of living under constant chemical threat would have fundamentally altered civilian life throughout the 20th century in ways we can barely comprehend."

Colonel (Ret.) Ibrahim Nasser, former Egyptian chemical defense specialist and current consultant on CBRN threats, notes: "The regional security implications would have been particularly pronounced in areas like the Middle East. Without even the limited restraint imposed by the Geneva Protocol, chemical weapons would have become the regional equalizer against conventional military advantages or nuclear capabilities. The Iran-Iraq War demonstrated how readily nations will employ chemical weapons when facing existential threats. In this alternate timeline, we would likely see chemical weapons integrated into standard military doctrines across the developing world, creating a multi-tiered weapons of mass destruction environment that would make current non-proliferation challenges seem simple by comparison. The technological diffusion of chemical weapons capabilities would have far outpaced nuclear proliferation, creating a more complex and ultimately more dangerous security environment in virtually every regional conflict zone."