This is probably a question I’d need Indy himself to answer, but if there are international law experts, I’d welcome their input too:
N-Stuff or Chlorine Trifluoride has become something of an internet meme as the chemical too destructive and savage for the frickin Nazis. However, in principle, it seems from a war crimes perspective, it’s a souped-up version of White Phosphorus, which is legal as long as it’s used as an incendiary, not as a chemical weapon, although it’s byproducts ARE poison gas that will kill you dead than dead. Thus it’s good for burning through bunkers. WP was used extensively in both WW without incident.
Nonetheless, every time I bring this weapon up in an alternate history people are adamant the Allies would treat using N-Stoff, to say blow through a section of the Maginot Line, the Entente would treat it as a breach of chemical warfare treaties. Is there legally a difference between the poisonous offshoots of CTF and WP enough to make the case? Also, is something like WP permitted in Naval warfare, where unlike bunkers you can’t really escape the fumes of death? It seems to me that CTF, and to a lesser degree WP, would be the kind of things you’d put in air-dropped bombs on top of vessels stuck doing bombardment for amphibious invasions, like in Husky. Salerno and Anzio, much less D-Day.
CTF in particular, well in the 1950s a ton of this stuff leaked and ate through a solid concrete floor and then a meter of gravel underneath it. You put this on the deck of a ship, it’s gonna eat through the decks and into the hull like Xenomorph blood. The ship is going to sink. So…why not give the Japanese plans for this instead of a Tiger tank and let the Kamakees…star shrine a little brighter?