API tools faq
paste
jonstond2

Chemical and Biological Warfare (Military History)

jonstond2
Feb 11th, 2017
172
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 102.94 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Introduction
  2.  
  3. Chemical weapons include arms that deploy gas, liquid, or solid substances with the intent of harming, harassing, or killing. They are commonly called poison gases, because those have been the most common kinds of chemical weapons used, although not all chemical weapons are poison gases. Biological weapons are those made from natural or synthetic diseases or substances intended to attack humans or animals and produce illness, thus injuring or killing their targets. Although, broadly defined, chemical and biological weapons have been a part of international warfare since ancient times, most histories focus on the modern, industrialized era, specifically 1915 onward. Chemical warfare was introduced and widely used in the form of poison gas during World War I. It was banned legally and morally during most of the interwar period, and, in general, belligerents were deterred from using chemical weapons during World War II and beyond. Chemical weaponry remains a threat from both state actors and now terrorists, although historians rarely focus on the contemporary period in depth. Biological warfare had been considered, but it was banned during the interwar period and has rarely been tried, and thus it has been the focus of fewer works than chemical warfare. The controversial nature of chemical and biological weapons (particularly the question of whether it is a humane or even acceptable weapon); the classification of both chemical and biological arms as weapons of mass destruction; and their limited use have inspired numerous historical works, especially ones focused on World War I, as well as works of interest to historians that are found in the scientific and policy literature.
  4.  
  5. General Overviews
  6.  
  7. There are a number of works that offer overviews of the history of chemical and biological weapons, although not all are monographs, and not are all found in works dedicated solely to historical examinations of chemical and biological weapons. Although it is useful to have sources focusing completely on biological or chemical warfare, having some that examine both topics can help explain the relationship between the two and why they are popularly, militarily, and politically perceived to be closely related. They tend to be seen as more closely related to each other than to nuclear weapons (the other key component of the main trio of weapons of mass destruction). See the Oxford Bibliographies article on Nuclear Weapons for more information on this other weapon of mass destruction.
  8.  
  9. Biological Warfare
  10.  
  11. Biological weapons, at times called bacteriological weapons, are generally defined as those intended to create disease (as compared with weapons that can harm any living material, such as crops). Although Martin, et al. 2007 is a chapter in a larger project about medicine for the military, it provides a good, brief overview of biological warfare, broadly defined, from ancient days forward, acknowledging the varying sophistication and range of items that can be considered biological weapons. Guillemin 2005, written by a famous figure in the field, focuses on the 20th century, when complex biological weapons programs developed. Another benefit of this work is that it acknowledges that the threat of biological weapons today includes bioterrorism and not just deployment of germs by nations; as with many books with historical discussions of chemical and biological weapons, Guillemin touches on issues also of interest to scholars concerned with policymaking. Finally, Regis 1999 gives an analysis focused specifically on the United States and biological weapons, telling a national story of experimentation with biological weapons that led to renunciation in the midst of the Cold War.
  12.  
  13. Guillemin, Jeanne. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
  14. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  15. Guillemin is interested in the development of national biological weapons programs after they were banned in the early 20th century, as well as understanding why the weapons were not used.
  16. Find this resource:
  17. Martin, James W., George W. Christopher, and Edward M. Eitzen, Jr. “History of Biological Weapons: From Poisoned Darts to International Epidemics.” In Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare. Edited by Zygmunt F. Dembek, 1–20. Textbooks of Military Medicine. Washington, DC: Borden Institute, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 2007.
  18. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  19. This chapter is a brief overview of biological weapons efforts from Hannibal through contemporary times. The inclusion of sections on terrorism and biocrimes are unusual additions to the survey. Available online.
  20. Find this resource:
  21. Regis, Ed. The Biology of Doom: The History of America’s Secret Germ Warfare Project. New York: Henry Holt, 1999.
  22. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  23. Covering the World War II era through the end of the 20th century, Regis has written a monograph focusing on the American experience with biological weapons, from its inception through the modern day, by focusing on the range of individuals involved.
  24. Find this resource:
  25. Biological and Chemical Warfare
  26.  
  27. The foundational work, Robinson and Leitenberg 1971, is an international study of modern chemical and biological weapons. The most recent work is by Spiers 2010, an expert in the field. The work contains a solid overview of the last century of chemical and biological weapons, the period in which such weapons have most often been used, and thus this book has the benefit of being written well after the last major events it discusses. For an examination of premodern and early-20th-century chemical and biological weapons, read Geissler and Moon 1999. Although Robinson and Leitenberg 1971 and Geissler and Moon 1999 overlap chronologically with regard to the first fifty years of the 20th century—the apogee of chemical and biological warfare—both are useful, and the latter focuses on biological weapons. It is worth noting that Robinson and Leitenberg’s book is part of a larger study for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a group that examines legal and other aspects of chemical and biological warfare. Mauroni 2000 offers the general American story, with its phases of expansion and contraction, while Carter 2000 illustrates the changes and developments at Britain’s major chemical and biological weapons research facility, Porton Down, the core of its chemical and biological programs. Carter and Pearson 1996 builds on this to offer a window into the multinational, decades-long research relationship between Canada, the United States, and Britain. Parker 1996 presents an investigation that focuses on the tests and dangers of chemical and biological weapons in multiple nations and conflicts. Finally, Crone 1992 is inspired by a late-20th-century chemical weapons prohibition, but the core of the book is about the links between science (especially chemistry) and chemical weapons, thus providing the layperson with a way to understand the scientific foundation of this weaponry.
  28.  
  29. Carter, G. B. Chemical and Biological Defence at Porton Down, 1916–2000. London: The Stationery Office, 2000.
  30. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  31. This book serves as the official history of Porton Down, the key research site for Britain’s chemical and biological weapons field research from its inception during World War I to the turn of the next century. It offers a clearly recounted overview of the institution.
  32. Find this resource:
  33. Carter, Gradon, and Graham S. Pearson. “North Atlantic Chemical and Biological Research Collaboration: 1916–1995.” Journal of Strategic Studies 19.1 (March 1996): 74–103.
  34. DOI: 10.1080/01402399608437627Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  35. This article follows the enduring relationship between Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States with regard to research, including summaries of meetings, on chemical and biological weapons from World War I through the 20th century.
  36. Find this resource:
  37. Crone, Hugh D. Banning Chemical Weapons: The Scientific Background. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  38. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  39. Crone, a scientist, writes out of concern about the effectiveness of the Chemical Weapons Convention. There are chapters explaining the general historical relationship of science to war, as well as a description of both the current status of chemical weapons and future concerns, with a focus on technical and scientific aspects.
  40. Find this resource:
  41. Geissler, Erhard, and John Ellis van Courtland Moon, eds. Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  42. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  43. A publication of the respected SIPRI, this book offers chapters on premodern biological warfare, but it emphasizes the first half of the 20th century through its numerous nationally based chapters by some of the most renowned names in the field.
  44. Find this resource:
  45. Mauroni, Albert J. America’s Struggle with Chemical-Biological Warfare. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.
  46. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  47. Mauroni’s goal in this book is to explain the evolution of the US Chemical Corps as an institutional unit, focusing on several themes to do so, and concluding that the Corps proved effective in the late 20th century with the Gulf War.
  48. Find this resource:
  49. Parker, John. The Killing Factory: The Top Secret World of Germ and Chemical Warfare. London: Smith Gryphon Publishers, 1996.
  50. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  51. Parker’s book studies the dangers of chemical and biological warfare by focusing on the human cost borne by volunteers, war casualties, deformed children, and others over the course of the 20th-century developments in the field. His approach is an international one.
  52. Find this resource:
  53. Robinson, Julian Perry, and Milton Leitenberg. The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare. Vol. I, The Rise of CB Weapons. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1971.
  54. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  55. This book provides a thorough overview by historical chemical weapons experts of the developments in, uses of (and allegations of use of), restraint with regard to, opinions about, and national programs for chemical and biological weapons during most of the 20th century. It is valuable because it addresses many angles of the history of these weapons.
  56. Find this resource:
  57. Spiers, Edward M. A History of Chemical and Biological Weapons. London: Reaktion, 2010.
  58. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  59. Scholars have lauded this overview of the history of chemical and biological weapons for its balanced approach. There is breadth in a history panning the 20th century, and depth in a focused study on the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War, including the consequences of that usage.
  60. Find this resource:
  61. Chemical Warfare
  62.  
  63. For a brief overview of chemical warfare, Hilmas, et al. 2008 offers the best choice; it is a chapter in a larger work in which the other sections focus on the medical aspects of chemical warfare. Coleman 2005 provides an international study and introduction to chemical warfare. Tucker 2006, in contrast, delves deeply into chosen examples of chemical warfare, using examples to depict a lively sweep of the development of chemical weapons. Finally, Brown 1968 is a foundational text in the field that examines the role of deterrence and other restraints encouraging nations to stop chemical weapons usage after using gas so plentifully during World War I.
  64.  
  65. Brown, Frederic J. Chemical Warfare: A Study in Restraints. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.
  66. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  67. Brown’s book is a classic one that addresses one of the mysteries of chemical warfare: why it has not been used after World War I on the scale seen during that conflict, despite the advances in science. Brown examines topics such as interwar policy, military unpreparedness, and the impact of belligerent policy in this work on chemical warfare in the first half of the 20th century.
  68. Find this resource:
  69. Coleman, Kim. A History of Chemical Warfare. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
  70. DOI: 10.1057/9780230501836Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  71. Coleman presents the broadest survey of chemical warfare by discussing events from 700 BCE to the first decade of the 21st century in numerous areas of the world in approximately 150 pages. It is a good introductory overview of the subject matter.
  72. Find this resource:
  73. Hilmas, Corey J., Jeffrey K. Smart, and Benjamin A. Hill, Jr. “History of Chemical Warfare.” In Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare. Edited by Shirley D. Tuorinsky, 9–76. Fort Detrick, MD: Borden Institute, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 2008.
  74. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  75. Although written as part of an official book regarding medicine and chemical warfare, this chapter presents an overview quickly, touching on the major events. Available online.
  76. Find this resource:
  77. Tucker, Jonathan B. War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to al-Qaeda. New York: Pantheon, 2006.
  78. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  79. Tucker’s book was written with a popular audience in mind, but it provides a solid overview of the last hundred years of chemical warfare, emphasizing certain events in depth. Of particular value is that it encompasses the use of gas by nations during World War I as well as threats by nonstate actors in the more recent period.
  80. Find this resource:
  81. Preindustrial Chemical and Biological Warfare
  82.  
  83. “Chemical warfare” is popularly defined as the use of poison gas developed after the chemical revolution of the late 19th century and used during World War I and beyond. However, as Mayor 2003 notes, there are numerous instances of chemical and biological weapons being used in ancient times. Using a liberal definition of these weapons, Mayor recounts examples from the Western and non-Western world. More particularly, there are instances that some scholars consider to be earlier examples of commonly recognized chemical warfare, namely “Greek fire.” While Cheronis 1937 focuses on a Middle Ages figure, Kallinikos, and specifically on who he was and what the composition of his brand of Greek fire was, Roland 1992 has a broader focus on the Byzantine Empire, wondering what kind of Greek fire it used, how it maintained the secret formula, and why its use of Greek fire faded away. Fenn 2000 is a neat examination of biological warfare in North America that studies one of the most controversial incidents in premodern biological warfare: did Lord Jeffrey Amherst deliberately infect Native Americans with disease, thus providing an early example of biological warfare? Hasegawa 2008 turns to the 19th-century United States to reveal a variety of chemical and biological weapons, loosely defined, proposed during the American Civil War. Stephenson 2006, a book about Lord Dundonald, follows one man’s championing of chemical warfare in 19th-century Britain in the face of official rejection. Miles 1970 deals with the cusp of the modern period, as the author examines the path to modern chemical warfare.
  84.  
  85. Cheronis, Nicholas D. “Chemical Warfare in the Middle Ages: Kalllinikos’ ‘Prepared Fire.’” Journal of Chemical Education 14.8 (August 1937): 360–365.
  86. DOI: 10.1021/ed014p360Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  87. This brief article investigates part of the rich mystery surrounding the composition and use of Greek fire and related substances by focusing on Kallinikos, a figure in the Byzantine era. Cheronis is interested in Kallinikos’s identity as well as the composition of his weapon and its relationship to the better known “Greek fire.”
  88. Find this resource:
  89. Fenn, Elizabeth A. “Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst.” The Journal of American History 86.4 (March 2000): 1552–1580.
  90. DOI: 10.2307/2567577Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  91. Fenn’s article studies not only the controversial actions of Jeffery Amherst, often thought to be a practitioner of biological warfare against the Native Americans, but goes further by proving that biological warfare, through the introduction of disease, was not unheard of in the colonial era.
  92. Find this resource:
  93. Hasegawa, Guy R. “Proposals for Chemical Weapons during the American Civil War.” Military Medicine 173.5 (May 2008): 499–506.
  94. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  95. Doctor of Pharmacy Hasegawa gives summaries of plant-based and inorganic items proposed as chemical weapons by both sides, but the majority are Northern suggestions. He shows that the chemical weapons and the toxic substances suggested often have some relationship to ones used in the 20th century.
  96. Find this resource:
  97. Mayor, Adrienne. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Woodstock, NY: Overlook, 2003.
  98. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  99. This monograph offers numerous examples of chemical and biological weapons, liberally defined, in ancient times, from both Western and Eastern societies, as well as the range of reactions they inspired.
  100. Find this resource:
  101. Miles, Wyndham D. “The Idea of Chemical Warfare in Modern Times.” Journal of the History of Ideas 31.2 (April–June 1970): 297–304.
  102. DOI: 10.2307/2708553Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  103. Miles argues that chemical warfare was first used in World War I, but that it had been conceptualized for almost a hundred years before that. To prove his point, he discusses ideas held by people such as Lord Dundonald and Lyon Playfair during the 19th century.
  104. Find this resource:
  105. Roland, Alex. “Secrecy, Technology, and War: Greek Fire and the Defense of Byzantium, 678–1204.” Technology and Culture 33.4 (October 1992): 655–679.
  106. DOI: 10.2307/3106585Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  107. Roland’s article on Greek fire tries to identify what the Byzantines called Greek fire, how they kept its formula secret, and why the weapon was lost over time. It is an analysis, in many ways, of the workings of the Byzantine Empire.
  108. Find this resource:
  109. Stephenson, Charles. The Admiral’s Secret Weapon: Lord Dundonald and the Origins of Chemical Warfare. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2006.
  110. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  111. Stephenson wrote a biography of Dundonald, whose suggestions to the UK government about chemical weapons were ignored, but memorable, in the era immediately before the chemical revolution of the late 19th century.
  112. Find this resource:
  113. World War I
  114.  
  115. The majority of books on chemical and biological weapons of the modern era can be divided according to the conflict or historical period that is the focus of each work, with a vast number highlighting World War I, the only time chemical weapons were used openly and frequently by belligerents on both sides of a war. Within that, it is important to recognize that during this “total war,” gas became a weapon of interest for the military, but also for those on the Home Front and in the scientific realm (see Science and Medicine). In addition, a number of the books in English about chemical weapons in World War I study Britain, one of the first victims and later one of the leaders of chemical weapons research (see British Military).
  116.  
  117. Home Front
  118.  
  119. Works on the home front include ones about civilian elements of the war, but studies of the home front can also encompass contemporary and modern perceptions and symbolism of chemical and biological warfare as well as legacies of this kind of warfare. The more traditional interpretations of home front can be seen in Girard 2008, in which the author studies the interactions of various segments of society—including the public, the chemical industry, and politicians—with poison gas (another name for chemical warfare) in Britain during this period. Cook 2000 studies perceptions, too, but does so in depth, with Canadian society at the forefront. Audoin-Rouzeau 2009 includes a representation of chemical weapons in a monograph about the truth of World War I. Finally, the WWI Chemical Weapons Testing Site article in Military History is a brief acknowledgment of the physical legacy of gas warfare, a topic worth remembering. In this piece there is an illumination of the abandoned and lost materials surrounding a World War I American research site.
  120.  
  121. Audoin-Rouzeau, Stéphane. Les armes et la chair: Trois objets de mort en 1914–1918. Paris: Armand Colin, 2009.
  122. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  123. This work, written in French, uses a gas model as one of three objects representing classic weapons of World War I to study the true violence and experience of the war, and to remind the reader of it.
  124. Find this resource:
  125. Cook, Tim. “‘Against God-Inspired Conscience’: The Perception of Gas Warfare as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, 1915–1939.” War & Society 18.1 (May 2000): 47–69.
  126. DOI: 10.1179/072924700791201379Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  127. The author examines the largely negative view of chemical warfare in World War I and the issue of gas’s effectiveness. The answers influence the interwar opinions (in Canada, but also nations such as Britain and the United States) as conflicting reports and opinions abounded, and as gas ultimately became a weapon of mass destruction.
  128. Find this resource:
  129. Girard, Marion. A Strange and Formidable Weapon: British Responses to World War I Poison Gas. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008.
  130. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  131. This author argues that different segments of British society (e.g., politicians, industrialists, physicians, scientists, general public) interacted with poison gas in varied ways and thus perceived it differently.
  132. Find this resource:
  133. “WWI Chemical Weapons Testing Site Continues to Yield Materiel.” Military History 24.10 (January 2008): 12.
  134. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  135. This brief article explains that the legacy of World War I chemical weapons includes the physical remains of research conducted at American University that is being found today in the surrounding neighborhoods.
  136. Find this resource:
  137. Science and Medicine
  138.  
  139. World War I witnessed the development of modern chemical weapons, so it is not surprising that historians have demonstrated a deep interest in this aspect of chemical weapons. The majority of the works focus on science, from the “biography” of an American poison gas, lewisite, in Vilensky 2005, to an account of chemists in general in MacLeod 1993, a study of British men supporting the war effort in various professional capacities. The complex relationship between chemists and the military in the effort to make chemical weapons a practical reality can be studied in Pattison 1983, while Whittemore 1975, an article on the war and immediate postwar period, is more concerned with scientists promoting poison gas for intellectual reasons and professional benefit. To understand how poison gases developed in the lab or field research stations, Gordon, et al. 1994 is a good place to start, and this piece shows the intimate connection of the civilian world with gas warfare in World War I. On the medical side, Haller 1990 provides a clear introduction to the challenges American physicians faced as they tried to react to the ever-evolving chemical weapons problem, while Sturdy 1999 looks at physiologists, the midway point between chemists and doctors, and their research regarding gas in Britain.
  140.  
  141. Gordon, Martin K., Barry R. Sude, and Ruth Ann Overbeck. “Chemical Testing in the Great War: The American University Experiment Station.” Washington History 6.1 (Spring/Summer 1994): 28–45.
  142. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  143. This article is rich with photographs. The text focuses on how American University became a locus for chemical weapons research during World War I, and how remnants and detritus from that work are being found today.
  144. Find this resource:
  145. Haller, John S., Jr. “Gas Warfare: Military-Medical Responsiveness of the Allies in the Great War, 1914–1918.” New York State Journal of Medicine 90.10 (October 1990): 499–509.
  146. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  147. This article focuses on a topic that has rarely been the center of historical pieces: the reaction of physicians to chemical warfare.
  148. Find this resource:
  149. MacLeod, Roy. “The Chemists Go to War: The Mobilization of Civilian Chemists and the British War Effort, 1914–1918.” Annals of Science 50.5 (1993): 455–481.
  150. DOI: 10.1080/00033799300200341Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  151. MacLeod’s article provides an account of British chemists’ contributions to the war effort during World War I and the interwar period, as they evolved to take on crucial roles in the conflict despite a lack of readiness in 1914.
  152. Find this resource:
  153. Pattison, Michael. “Scientists, Inventors and the Military in Britain, 1915–19: The Munitions Inventions Department.” Social Studies of Science 13.4 (November 1983): 521–568.
  154. DOI: 10.1177/030631283013004004Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  155. This article offers insight into the workings of committees and government departments to support the development of arms for Britain during World War I; gas is one of the weapons discussed. Pattison offers the opportunity to understand the complexity of the relationships of the groups involved in this endeavor.
  156. Find this resource:
  157. Sturdy, Steve. “War as Experiment: Physiology, Innovation and Administration in Britain, 1914–1918: The Case of Chemical Warfare.” In War, Medicine and Modernity. Edited by Roger Cooter, Mark Harrison, and Steve Sturdy, 65–84. Thrupp, UK: Sutton, 1999.
  158. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  159. Experimentation remains a major part of chemical warfare study, and Sturdy’s focus is the role of physiologists, with their special perspective, in laboratory work and in the war effort.
  160. Find this resource:
  161. Vilensky, Joel A. Dew of Death: The Story of Lewisite, America’s World War I Weapon of Mass Destruction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005.
  162. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  163. The first chapters of Vilensky’s work discuss the invention of lewisite as a chemical weapon by American scientists in World War I, while the work as a whole looks at the chemical’s longer history.
  164. Find this resource:
  165. Whittemore, Gilbert F., Jr. “World War I, Poison Gas Research, and the Ideals of American Chemists.” Social Studies of Science 5.2 (May 1975): 135–163.
  166. DOI: 10.1177/030631277500500202Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  167. American chemists’ advocacy of interwar gas research arose partly from ideals about public service and scientific research. Whittemore demonstrates how and why the military began to support chemical research of the sort envisioned by some scientists from World War I up until 1920.
  168. Find this resource:
  169. British Military
  170.  
  171. The majority of the English-language works on World War I chemical warfare are about Britain, which was one of the first victims, and later one of the leading practitioners, of chemical warfare during that conflict. Foulkes 1934 is by the head of the British chemical corps, also known as the Special Brigade, and it presents his work in the interwar period as both a history and a justification of the unit’s work. The detail about the development of this unit in Britain is extensive. Richter 1992 offers another take on this, from the perspective of a modern historian, while Hodges 1988 provides a rare, book-length autobiography of a British chemical soldier. Girard 2008 provides a shorter discussion of the military involvement in chemical weapons, focusing on how they impacted the soldiers overall and the military organization specifically. Palazzo 2000 addresses the important question of the impact that chemical weapons had on how the British waged war. Sheffy’s contributions (Sheffy 2005, Sheffy 2009) are interesting because each article focuses on an area beyond the Western Front (the core theater for gas warfare) and discusses the reluctant condoning (at least in theory) of chemical weapons by the British in Palestine and Gallipoli.
  172.  
  173. Foulkes, Charles H. “Gas!” The Story of the Special Brigade. Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1934.
  174. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  175. Foulkes wrote one of the most detailed accounts of the formation of the British Special Brigade, the offensive chemical warfare unit, and its service in World War I, from the perspective of one of its commanders and an admirer of chemical weapons.
  176. Find this resource:
  177. Girard, Marion. A Strange and Formidable Weapon: British Responses to World War I Poison Gas. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008.
  178. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  179. One chapter in this book demonstrates how gas required every man on the Western Front in the British Expeditionary Force to confront its use by learning defensive measures, while the army had to reorganize to create new offensive units to handle the new arm.
  180. Find this resource:
  181. Hodges, Frederick James. Men of 18 in 1918. Ilfracombe, Devon, UK: Arthur H. Stockwell, 1988.
  182. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  183. This is a memoir of a British gas soldier during World War I, and thus provides a rare insight into chemical warfare from someone who participated in it offensively at the ground level.
  184. Find this resource:
  185. Palazzo, Albert. Seeking Victory on the Western Front: The British Army and Chemical Warfare in World War I. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
  186. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  187. Palazzo focuses on the integration of gas warfare by the British on the Western Front to examine how it was operationally and intellectually embraced and adopted.
  188. Find this resource:
  189. Richter, Donald. Chemical Soldiers: British Gas Warfare in World War I. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1992.
  190. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  191. Richter’s book uses a variety of sources to give a detailed account of the British Special Brigade, the gas unit, during World War I. It updates and contrasts with the view in Foulkes 1934 of the same unit and its accomplishments.
  192. Find this resource:
  193. Sheffy, Yigal. “The Chemical Dimension of the Gallipoli Campaign: Introducing Chemical Warfare to the Middle East.” War in History 12.3 (July 2005): 278–317.
  194. DOI: 10.1191/0968344505wh317oaSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  195. Sheffy’s article looks at multiple factors that influenced British gas policy to offer an explanation about why the British gas policy changed to allow chemical weapons to be shipped to Gallipoli to be used against the Turks (although they were not used there).
  196. Find this resource:
  197. Sheffy, Yigal. “Chemical Warfare and the Palestine Campaign, 1916–1918.” Journal of Military History 73.3 (July 2009): 803–844.
  198. DOI: 10.1353/jmh.0.0311Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  199. Sheffy studies gas use in three campaigns in Palestine, arguing that it did not make a difference at the Second Battle of Gaza, and that it was used in deception plans in the Third Battle of Gaza (although not as extensively in the battle as was originally desired).
  200. Find this resource:
  201. German Military
  202.  
  203. The German chemical weapons experience in World War I is an important one because Germany introduced large-scale chemical warfare to the battlefield in 1915, inspiring hostility and retaliation from the country’s enemies. Haber 1986 is the classic text about Germany and the founding scientist of modern chemical weapons, Fritz Haber. Martinez 1996 and Kaiser 2002 also address the role of science and scientists. Martinez’s book, written ten years after Haber’s study, is broader in the description of the development of gas warfare with the help of multiple segments of society, while Kaiser’s article notes that scientists were not the only ones involved in and encouraging the use of gas during and after World War I. Wietzker 2008, in contrast, focuses on the public’s knowledge and understanding of gas rather than experts’ and participants’ roles and perceptions.
  204.  
  205. Haber, L. F. The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986.
  206. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  207. This foundational book explains the introduction and evolution of poison gas in World War I, focusing on Fritz Haber, the German scientist who developed and supported the first chemical weapons. It is written by his son, but it is acknowledged as an impressive piece of scholarship.
  208. Find this resource:
  209. Kaiser, Gerhard. “Wie die Kultur einbrach: Giftgas und Wissenschaftsethos im Ersten Weltkrieg.” Merkur: Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken 56 (2002): 210–220.
  210. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  211. In this article, the author uses primary sources, such as the letter of a fallen soldier, to demonstrate how Germany adopted gas, as well as the legacies this had in terms of the widening acceptance among scientists and others of gas, opening the door to later use on and off the field.
  212. Find this resource:
  213. Martinez, Dieter. Der Gaskrieg 1914/18: Entwicklung, Herstellung Und Einsatz chemische Kampfstoffe; Das Zusammenwirken von militärischer Führung, Wissenschaft Und Industrie. Bonn, Germany: Bernard & Graefe, 1996.
  214. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  215. This work is a thorough account of the scientific, industrial, and military efforts and persons required to introduce the German chemical warfare effort, and of the gas war’s evolution.
  216. Find this resource:
  217. Wietzker, Wolfgang. Giftgas im Ersten Weltkrieg: Was konnte die deutsche Öffentlichkeit wissen? Saarbrücken, Germany: Vdm Verlag Dr. Müller, 2008.
  218. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  219. This book, by a former military officer and historian, is as much about censorship as it is about gas. Chemical warfare is the model through which the author examines why and when information was permitted to be published and the public informed.
  220. Find this resource:
  221. Other Military
  222.  
  223. Britain was not the only nation who waged gas warfare. The Canadians, who were also early victims of chemical weapons, also participated, as Cook 1999 discusses. Lepick 1998 encompasses the story of several belligerents. Some historical works focus on the development of new units to wage chemical warfare (which compares to the universal need for soldiers to mount defenses against it), including Brophy 1956, an article about the American Chemical Corps, and Cook 1999, which does the same for the Canadian unit. Heller 1984 concentrates on the American experiment with war on the battlefront. Also looking at the advent of chemical weapons, although in a briefer fashion, is Trumpener 1975. Trumpener emphasizes the events on the battlefield, whereas individuals particularly intrigue the author of Haber 1986 (cited under German Military). Jones 2007, in contrast, examines the methods of actually fighting gas warfare. Finally, Muller 2000 takes a step back and assesses how chemical warfare fits into the larger historiographical debate about whether (and how) World War I was a “total war.”
  224.  
  225. Brophy, Leo P. “Origins of the Chemical Corps.” Military Affairs 20.4 (Winter 1956): 217–226.
  226. DOI: 10.2307/1983705Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  227. This is an introduction to the history of the American Chemical Corps. The acknowledgment of the roles of assorted agencies and governmental departments, including ones other than Defense, such as the Department of the Interior, place the story of the American Chemical Corps in context.
  228. Find this resource:
  229. Cook, Tim. No Place to Run: The Canadian Corps and Gas Warfare in the First World War. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1999.
  230. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  231. Cook’s monograph reveals the individual experience and the military institution’s response to fighting and enduring the gas war during World War I, a pervasive challenge that had to be faced throughout the conflict.
  232. Find this resource:
  233. Heller, Charles E. Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American Experience, 1917–1918. Leavenworth Papers 10. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, 1984.
  234. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  235. This book concentrates on the military experience of the American Expeditionary Force during World War I in confronting and reacting to chemical weapons, providing some comparison with the European experiences.
  236. Find this resource:
  237. Jones, Simon. World War I Gas Warfare Tactics and Equipment. Osprey Elite Series 150. Oxford: Osprey, 2007.
  238. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  239. Part of the Osprey Elite series, this brief book provides a summary of international efforts to wage chemical warfare, including discussions of major gas battles and developments in chemical weapons and tactics. The book is rife with photographs and illustrations that ably illuminate the prose.
  240. Find this resource:
  241. Lepick, Olivier. La Grande Guerre chimique, 1914–1918. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998.
  242. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  243. Lepick studies the chemical war in an effort to explain the reality beneath the common negative assumptions. Written in French, it is a work that encompasses the actions of multiple belligerents.
  244. Find this resource:
  245. Muller, Rolf-Dieter. “Total War as a Result of New Weapons? The Use of Chemical Agents in World War I.” In Great War, Total War: Combat and Mobilization on the Western Front, 1914–1918. Edited by Roger Chickering and Stig Forster, 95–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  246. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  247. Muller argues that chemical weapons were not a result of, nor a symbol of, total war, but rather that their use demonstrates the participation of those who made and developed the weapons. Gases were part of a new wave of weapons. Copublished with the German Historical Institute in Washington, DC.
  248. Find this resource:
  249. Trumpener, Ulrich. “The Road to Ypres: The Beginnings of Gas Warfare in World War I.” Journal of Modern History 47.3 (September 1975): 460–480.
  250. DOI: 10.1086/241340Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  251. This article focuses on Germany’s chemical warfare activities in World War I, in particular on how chemical weapons were developed and accepted despite technical, legal, and other challenges to their innovation and use.
  252. Find this resource:
  253. Interwar Period
  254.  
  255. Works about the interwar period tend to address the legal and popular attempts to ban gas in future wars, or the use of nonlethal gases (e.g., tear gases) to control unrest domestically or in imperial situations (see Use and Rejection). There is another segment of works about chemical and biological weapons in this period: works that revolve around scientists (see Science). Because their role was so central to developing and explaining gas, their reactions to gas after World War I have been studied widely, too.
  256.  
  257. Science
  258.  
  259. The largest issue that scientists wrestled with after World War I was whether gas should be pursued in future wars or in other venues, such as in the apprehension of criminals. Slotten 1990, an article about American views of gas, confronts that question directly, as do Faith 2010 and Whittemore 1975. Although there is some overlap in these three articles, Whittemore looks at the war and immediate postwar period, as well as the increasing ties between the military and scientists in this area; Faith goes into detail about the 1920s (and about some issues that the other two do not consider to be motivating factors for the scientists); and Slotten has the widest view, discussing the period from World War I to 1930, and notes that the debate about chemical weapons is an example of the larger negotiation of the role of scientists in society during the period. Jones 1980 concentrates on the legal element of this intellectual struggle: the negotiation of the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925, which banned chemical and biological weapons and thus influenced scientists and their roles in policy and warfare.
  260.  
  261. Faith, Thomas. “‘As Is Proper in Republican Form of Government’: Selling Chemical Warfare to Americans in the 1920s.” Federal History 2 (January 2010): 28–41.
  262. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  263. This article is about the Chemical Warfare Services’ efforts to change negative public opinion about gas, by arguing, for example, for the humanity of gas, its possible peacetime uses, and its use in domestic peacekeeping.
  264. Find this resource:
  265. Jones, Daniel P. “American Chemists and the Geneva Protocol.” Isis 71.3 (September 1980): 426–440.
  266. DOI: 10.1086/352542Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  267. This article recounts the efforts by American scientists to discourage US support of the Geneva Gas Protocol, a treaty that would ban chemical and biological weapons. It is a case study of how scientists can work to influence policy.
  268. Find this resource:
  269. Slotten, Hugh R. “Humane Chemistry or Scientific Barbarism? American Responses to World War I Poison Gas, 1915–1930.” Journal of American History 77.2 (September 1990): 476–498.
  270. DOI: 10.2307/2079180Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  271. Slotten’s title captures the two main sides of one of the interwar debates about gas: what kind of weapon is it? Slotten examines the growth in power and authority by scientists as they embraced gas and sought to convince others to do so too, thus placing gas in the “humane chemistry” camp.
  272. Find this resource:
  273. Whittemore, Gilbert F., Jr. “World War I, Poison Gas Research, and the Ideals of American Chemists.” Social Studies of Science 5.2 (May 1975): 135–163.
  274. DOI: 10.1177/030631277500500202Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  275. Whittemore focuses mainly on the prewar and World War I eras in order to explain why scientists continued to support gas in the early interwar period, noting that factors beyond the purely military aspects of chemical weapons must be considered. He also reveals the integration of military science and research science in this field.
  276. Find this resource:
  277. Use and Rejection
  278.  
  279. Some of the same issues that confronted scientists, namely whether gas should be used after 1918, faced people internationally. The debate extended to nonlethal gases, such as tear gases, which Americans used vigorously in domestic upheaval, but it also addressed the use of lethal and nonlethal gases in nontraditional settings, such as in colonial warfare with more “barbaric” peoples. Shoul 2008 looks at the tension arising in Britain over the use of any gas, even tear gas, in the British colonies. The lines were not clear; and the legal and moral taboos against gas were not uniform, nor were bans against it seen as impenetrable during much of the interwar period. Spiers 2006 illustrates this point by describing failed efforts to ban gas, while Fujitani 1991 describes more successful attempts associated with the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol. The fact that there were parties in favor of gas, as well as ones against it, can be understood by reading Faith 2010, Slotten 1990, and Whittemore 1975 (all cited under the Science section), which are about American chemists’ public relations efforts regarding gas in the 1920s. To show that a taboo was being formed during the same period, Douglas 2009 investigates the popular assumption that Britain used lethal gases in colonial Iraq in the interwar period. Spiers 1983, meanwhile, examines why gas was so attractive to the British in their efforts to subdue Afghanistan. Finally, Balfour 2002 gives a brief peek at examples of chemical warfare by Western nations in colonial regions during the interwar period.
  280.  
  281. Balfour, Sebastian. “Chemical Warfare in the 1920s & 30s.” History Today 52.6 (June 2002): 2–3.
  282. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  283. Balfour’s brief article reminds readers that Western nations experimented with and considered using chemical weapons in colonial conflicts in the interwar period, especially the Spanish in Morocco.
  284. Find this resource:
  285. Douglas, R. M. “Did Britain Use Chemical Weapons in Mandatory Iraq?” The Journal of Modern History 81.4 (December 2009): 859–887.
  286. DOI: 10.1086/605488Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  287. The interwar period was one in which Britain considered gas use in the colonies. Douglas decides that Britain did not use it in Iraq, despite many historical claims that she did. He explains why he believes those assertions are false.
  288. Find this resource:
  289. Fujitani, Kevin T. “The United States and Chemical Warfare: The 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol and Its Legacy.” MA diss., University of Hawai‘i, 1991.
  290. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  291. This thesis focuses on America’s relationship with the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol (which it did not ratify until decades later) and the impact that relationship had.
  292. Find this resource:
  293. Shoul, Simeon. “British Tear Gas Doctrine between the World Wars.” War in History 15.2 (April 2008): 168–190.
  294. DOI: 10.1177/0968344507087002Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  295. Shoul argues that British public opinion’s negative view of gas included tear gas, and that this was so strong that it inhibited Britain from developing and using tear gas effectively during the interwar period.
  296. Find this resource:
  297. Spiers, Edward M. “Gas and the North-West Frontier.” The Journal of Strategic Studies 6.4 (1983): 94–112.
  298. DOI: 10.1080/01402398308437170Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  299. There were multiple views about gas in Britain and India during the interwar period, but in the end, attitudes and practical constraints led to the difficulty in getting approval for chemical weapons use on the North-West Frontier.
  300. Find this resource:
  301. Spiers, Edward M. “Gas Disarmament in the 1920: Hopes Confounded.” The Journal of Strategic Studies 29.2 (April 2006): 281–300.
  302. DOI: 10.1080/01402390600585092Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  303. Focusing on Britain and the United States while looking at the international picture, Spiers explains why chemical weapons disarmament failed at the global level despite repeated attempts.
  304. Find this resource:
  305. World War II
  306.  
  307. Literature about World War II focuses on the close calls that almost led to multiparty widespread use of gas and biological weapons (the latter being a real threat for the first time in modern history) and on speculation about why this did not occur. The categories in this section, therefore, offer some works focusing solely on biological weapons, but most of them still concentrate on chemical weapons and the extensive preparations for their use.
  308.  
  309. Biological Warfare
  310.  
  311. Although never really officially recognized during World War II, despite the fact that it was legally banned through the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925, Japan, and perhaps Germany, waged some biological warfare, and other nations considered and feared it. Barenblatt 2004 and Harris 2002 give graphic accounts of Unit 731, Japan’s organization in charge of biological weapons experimentation in China, as well discussing the American decision to keep those activities quiet in an effort to benefit from their research during the Cold War. Barenblatt’s work is written for a more popular audience, while Harris’s text was one of the first books about this topic. Jeans 2007 explores an interesting situation in which some in Washington became concerned because of a book by an American about Japanese biological weapons. They feared it would inspire panic, despite the fact that the book was largely a dud. Bernstein 1990 is a brief chapter, but it offers a more general account of the American biological weapons effort during its early years, written by someone who has written key pieces of the historical literature on chemical and biological weapons. Regarding the European theater, Snowden 2008 writes an unusual and fascinating piece about German efforts to deliberately produce the conditions that would cause malaria, thus engaging in indirect biological warfare. Jones and Lewis 1987 is about theoretical biological warfare, namely how seriously Churchill considered resorting to biological weapons in the form of anthrax. Davidson 2003 is a short but valuable article because it illustrates how an individual scientist could become a champion of biological weapons.
  312.  
  313. Barenblatt, Daniel. A Plague upon Humanity: The Secret Genocide of Axis Japan’s Germ Warfare Operation. New York: HarperCollins, 2004.
  314. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  315. The author reveals the actions of Japanese biological warfare program during the interwar and World War II periods, and then details its treatment after the war ended. He does not spare the details about the experiments and behavior in which Unit 731 engaged.
  316. Find this resource:
  317. Bernstein, Barton J. “Origins of the Biological Warfare Program.” In Preventing a Biological Arms Race. Edited by Susan Wright, 9–25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
  318. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  319. Bernstein examines the development and growth of the American biological weapons program in World War II, as well as the attitudes toward it and the use of biological weapons. Includes a look at the characters and influence of some of the major figures involved. Available online.
  320. Find this resource:
  321. Davidson, Margaret. “Biowarrior.” American History 38.2 (June 2003): 44–49.
  322. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  323. Ira L. Baldwin, the leader of the American biological weapons effort during World War II, is the focus of Davidson’s brief article. She describes his involvement in biological warfare and his attitude toward it, as well as the workings of the program.
  324. Find this resource:
  325. Harris, Sheldon H. Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932–1945, and the American Cover-Up. 2d ed. New York: Routledge, 2002.
  326. DOI: 10.4324/NOE0415932141Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  327. Harris’s book is one of the first to study Unit 731, the Japanese biological warfare unit that specialized in human research and experimentation, especially its leader, Ishii Shiro. He reveals not only what the unit did in China during World War II, but also how the United States helped shield its actions and results after the war.
  328. Find this resource:
  329. Jeans, Roger B. “Alarm in Washington: A Wartime ‘Exposé’ of Japan’s Biological Warfare Program.” The Journal of Military History 71.2 (April 2007): 411–439.
  330. DOI: 10.1353/jmh.2007.0126Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  331. Jean’s article describes the US government’s concern about a book by Barclay Moon Newman that “exposed” Japanese practices. The officials reacted largely out of fear that the book would create panic (and despite the irony that Japan had engaged in some biological warfare in China).
  332. Find this resource:
  333. Jones, R. V., and J. M. Lewis. “Churchill’s Anthrax Bombs: A Debate.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 43.9 (November 1987): 42–45.
  334. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  335. This article responds to Bernstein (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [January/February 1987]), and also contains Bernstein’s response to Jones and Lewis. The duo argue that deterrence motivated Britain’s biological weapons plans, while Bernstein believes Britain developed biological weapons fairly secretly, and thus did not intend such weapons to have a deterrent value.
  336. Find this resource:
  337. Snowden, Frank. “Latina Province, 1944–1950.” Journal of Contemporary History 43.3 (July 2008): 509–526.
  338. DOI: 10.1177/0022009408091838Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  339. Germany deliberately created conditions to foster malaria in the Latina region of Italy during World War II, thus instigating a kind of biological warfare. Snowden recounts that episode, and then describes the attempts of the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration to revive the area after the war.
  340. Find this resource:
  341. Chemical Warfare Preparation
  342.  
  343. Chemical warfare remains more interesting than biological warfare to scholars of World War II, although, as in the literature on World War I, there are several aspects that have drawn attention. As a result of the different roles that they play, soldiers and scientists should be considered separately, and this section is divided into two subsections, Military and Scientific.
  344.  
  345. Military
  346.  
  347. The most interesting literature regarding military preparation for chemical warfare revolves around American plans and actions. The United States had refrained from chemical warfare, even though it had not ratified the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925. Still, at various points in the war, President Roosevelt threatened to retaliate if a foe used gas. As a result, a US ship carrying mustard gas was in Bari Harbor, off the coast of Italy, when it was hit in a German air raid, generating Allied gas casualties, but the true nature of their injuries was temporarily hidden (see Infield 1971). As further proof that the United States considered chemical warfare to be a real threat, and in preparation for retribution, the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) was developed and organized. Brophy and Fisher 2004 presents the official, detailed history of this service, while Ede 2011 provides a much more concise history. Another official history, Kleber and Birdsell 1966, discusses the wartime activities of the CWS, which was busy despite the lack of offensive chemical weapons. Brophy, et al. 1959 tells another part of this official history about the equipment and arms produced for the army. Finally, Allen and Polmar 1995 looks at the end of the war when the United States seriously considered using gas on Japan to speed the conclusion of the conflict.
  348.  
  349. Allen, Thomas B., and Norman Polmar. Code-Name Downfall: The Secret Plan to Invade Japan—And Why Truman Dropped the Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
  350. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  351. As part of a book on the effort to defeat Japan, Allen and Polmar include a chapter about American consideration of chemical and biological weapons during the proposed invasion of Japan at the end of World War II. At the same time, they mention Japanese use of such weapons in China earlier in the war.
  352. Find this resource:
  353. Brophy, Leo P., and George J. B. Fisher. The Chemical Warfare Service: Organizing for War. United States Army in World War II: The Technical Services. Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History, 2004.
  354. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  355. Part of the official history of the US Army in World War II (see also Brophy, et al. 1959 and Kleber and Birdsell 1966), this detailed work focuses on the institutional history of the CWS, emphasizing the upper echelon’s organization as well as the establishment of training methods and schools. First published in 1958.
  356. Find this resource:
  357. Brophy, Leo P., Wyndham D. Miles, and Rexmond C. Cochrane. The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field. United States Army in World War II: The Technical Services 2. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History, 1959.
  358. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  359. The second volume in this official history of the CWS (see also Brophy and Fisher 2004 and Kleber and Birdsell 1966) by Brophy and his colleagues focuses on the weapons, namely their creation and the equipping of the military. The focus is World War II, but the authors go back to World War I in their efforts to tell the full story.
  360. Find this resource:
  361. Ede, Andrew. “Waiting to Exhale: Chaos, Toxicity and the Origins of the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39.1 (Spring 2011): 28–33.
  362. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00545.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  363. Ede describes the disorganization inherent in the American World War I gas warfare efforts, including the multiple groups engaged in the work and the lost research results. He notes that the military learned from these efforts when World War II came. The article uses the subject of gas warfare to comment on science.
  364. Find this resource:
  365. Infield, Glenn B. Disaster at Bari. New York: Macmillan, 1971.
  366. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  367. Infield writes a popular history of the unintended release of mustard gas from Allied ships at Bari during World War II, as a result of an Axis air raid. He focuses on the experiences of those caught up in the aftermath, from the victims to the medical personal, most of whom were unaware that mustard gas had been released.
  368. Find this resource:
  369. Kleber, Brooks E., and Dale Birdsell. The Chemical Warfare Service: Chemicals in Combat. United States Army in World War II: The Technical Services 3. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History, 1966.
  370. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  371. This is the third and last volume in the official history of the CWS—see also Brophy and Fisher 2004 and Brophy, et al. 1959. It focuses on the actions of the CWS, which, despite preparation for waging a gas war, were secondary (for instance, it deployed flamethrowers, not mustard gas) and defensive (it concentrated on decontamination).
  372. Find this resource:
  373. Scientific
  374.  
  375. As in earlier periods, scientists and their work were key to chemical warfare. The Allied efforts often intertwined, particularly those of Canada, the United States, and Britain, as Bryden 1989 explains. Each country conducted research, whether on testing sites like the ones Arrington and Alexander 1964 examines, or on human subjects, as Smith 2008 and Goodwin 1998 discuss. Note that Goodwin looks at another ally, Australia, while Smith studies the peculiar tone that racism added to experiments in the United States. Ord and Stocken 2000 brings up the contributions to defense—a common claim was that preparing for defense required understanding potential offense—while Schmaltz 2006 simply looks at preparations for offensive chemical warfare in Germany, the country that proved to be the most advanced in that field.
  376.  
  377. Arrington, Leonard J., and Thomas G. Alexander. “Sentinels on the Desert: The Dugway Proving Ground (1942–1963) and Deseret Chemical Depot (1942–1955).” Utah Historical Quarterly 32.1 (January 1964): 32–43.
  378. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  379. The authors examine two chemical weapons sites in Utah to explain their use during World War II and Korea. One of the interesting elements is that this is a story of establishment, closure, and expansion as the possibilities for chemical weapons ebb and flow during different conflicts and during peacetime.
  380. Find this resource:
  381. Bryden, John. Deadly Allies: Canada’s Secret War, 1937–1947. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1989.
  382. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  383. This book focuses on Canada’s research and contributions to Allied chemical and biological weapons, including Canadian interactions with Britain and America during World War II. Sir Frederick Banting is a prominent figure, but Bryden also looks at political and military aspects. He is open about the challenges of conducting research on this topic.
  384. Find this resource:
  385. Goodwin, Bridget. Keen as Mustard: Britain’s Horrific Chemical Warfare Experiments in Australia. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland Press, 1998.
  386. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  387. Goodwin reveals the story of the Australians who volunteered during World War II as subjects in mustard gas experiments, and the legacies of their actions, including government resistance to helping and acknowledging the sacrifices.
  388. Find this resource:
  389. Ord, Margery G., and Lloyd A. Stocken. “A Contribution to Chemical Defence in World War II.” Trends in Biochemical Sciences 25.5 (May 2000): 253.
  390. DOI: 10.1016/S0968-0004(00)01578-4Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  391. This brief article is quite technical in focus as it describes chemists preparing for defense using chemicals, whether for chemical warfare or medical threats, in World War II.
  392. Find this resource:
  393. Schmaltz, Florian. “Neurosciences and Research on Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction in Nazi Germany.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 15.3 (September 2006): 186–209.
  394. DOI: 10.1080/09647040600658229Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  395. This article is rather technical at times, but, using the development of the nerve gas soman as an example, the author reveals the interaction of the state, military, and chemical research groups in Germany to produce scientific innovations in the field of chemical and biological weapons.
  396. Find this resource:
  397. Smith, Susan L. “Mustard Gas and American Race-based Human Experimentation in World War II.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36.3 (Fall 2008): 517–521.
  398. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.299.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  399. Smith deplores the mustard gas experiments in the United States during World War II that were structured along racial theories, and thus also generated race-based interpretations of the results.
  400. Find this resource:
  401. Chemical Weapons Restraint
  402.  
  403. Despite the extensive preparations for and fears about chemical warfare, it did not occur. (It is worth noting that the Nazis did use a chemical, Zyklon B, in the concentration camp gas chambers, but not all uses of gas, even in war, are chemical warfare.) Bernstein 1985 is a classic article, raising and discussing several theories about why gas warfare did not occur in World War II. Legro 1995 takes an interesting approach to the same topic. Its author examines, using international relations theories, why Britain, Germany, and the USSR successfully avoided chemical warfare. Although Moon 2003 focuses mainly on the United States, the author notes that Allied relationships influenced American chemical weapons policy. In his other article (Moon 1984), Moon studies the power of deterrence in preventing chemical warfare. Gellermann 1986 takes a more national approach by explaining why the Germans did not use gas on the battlefield, and Borkin 1978 takes a different angle, studying a case in which an actor, in this case the I. G. Farben chemical company, did not restrain itself from supporting the German war effort.
  404.  
  405. Bernstein, Barton J. “Why We Didn’t Use Poison Gas in World War II.” American Heritage 36.5 (August/September 1985): 40–45.
  406. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  407. Bernstein’s classic article is a summary of the question about why the United States (and, indirectly, other nations) did not use chemical weapons during World War II. It is a short piece, but the author touches upon numerous possibilities and has consulted several critical primary sources in his work.
  408. Find this resource:
  409. Borkin, Joseph. The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben. New York: Free Press, 1978.
  410. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  411. The author, with legal antitrust training and a scholarly interest in I. G. Farben, was well suited to study chemical giant I. G. Farben’s endorsement of Nazi efforts, offering the perspective that it provided active support of the regime by providing both money and knowledge.
  412. Find this resource:
  413. Gellermann, Gunther W. Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand: Möglichkeiten, Überlegungen und Entscheidungen der deutschen Obersten Führung zur Verwendung chemischer Kampfstoffe im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Bonn, Germany: Bernard & Graefe, 1986.
  414. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  415. Focusing on the highest military levels, Gellermann analyzes why World War II did not become a chemical war, especially considering the gas activity in World War I.
  416. Find this resource:
  417. Legro, Jeffrey W. “Chemical Warfare.” In Cooperation under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint during World War II. By Jeffrey W. Legro, 144–216. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.
  418. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  419. Legro’s larger work is a study rooted in international relations theory about World War II, and particularly what did not happen in specific situations. In his chemical warfare case study, he suggests reasons why gas warfare did not break out between two nations who had used gas in World War I and were prepared to launch it again. In a smaller segment of the chapter, he also touches on the Soviet Union’s role.
  420. Find this resource:
  421. Moon, John Ellis van Courtland. “Chemical Weapons and Deterrence: The World War II Experience.” International Security 8.4 (Spring 1984): 3–35.
  422. DOI: 10.2307/2538560Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  423. Moon asks why the belligerents refrained from gas warfare in World War II. He breaks the conflict into phases to study motivations at each point, ending with a powerful policy of deterrence set in 1943. Deterrence had its benefits as well as its drawbacks, according to Moon.
  424. Find this resource:
  425. Moon, John Ellis van Courtland. “United States Chemical Warfare Policy in World War II: A Captive of Coalition Policy?” In The American Experience in World War II. Vol. 5, The United States in the European Theater. Edited by Walter L. Hixson, 29–45. New York: Routledge, 2003.
  426. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  427. Moon’s article, first published in a 1996 issue of the Journal of Military History, examines how alliance relationships pressured and influenced American chemical weapons policy in World War II, and how American policy was more flexible in practice than in theory.
  428. Find this resource:
  429. The Cold War
  430.  
  431. Despite the general restraint that ensured that chemical warfare did not become widespread in World War II, many nations continued or began chemical and biological weapons programs to prepare to face the continuing threat of weapons of mass destruction in the Cold War era (see National Programs). Because chemical and biological weapons were clearly taboo and illegal during the Cold War, historians also examine controversial allegations of their use during that period, acknowledging that it was a political as well as a military issue (see Allegations of Use).
  432.  
  433. National Programs
  434.  
  435. As befitting the Cold War superpowers, their chemical and biological weapons programs have attracted the most attention from historians. Alibek 1999 provides a personal account of the Soviet biological weapons program, and Gordin 1997 focuses on one particular episode in the development of the Soviet program. Gordin recounts an epidemic of anthrax in Soviet Sverdlovsk and the investigation about whether it arose because of biological weapons or natural causes. Regarding the American experience, Miller, et al. 2001 reveals American biological weapons activities and support outside of the United States, while Ketchum 2006, a memoir, discusses human testing in US Army research, including the use of psychedelic drugs, during the early Cold War period. The pivotal moment in American biological weapons history, though, is the 1969 unilateral renunciation of biological weapons by President Nixon, a topic discussed in Tucker 2002 and Goldman 2009. The latter examines the military reaction and involvement in the decision, whereas Tucker’s work is more oriented toward the decision. The most unusual program, perhaps, is described in Purkitt and Burgess 2002, a study of South Africa’s efforts to build and end a substantial chemical and biological weapons program, including the influence of apartheid upon it. Bolton 2011 looks more at theories of consent for experimentation while studying the kinds of British experiments that Ketchum was conducting in the United States.
  436.  
  437. Alibek, Ken. Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World, Told from the Inside by the Man Who Ran It. With Stephen Handleman. New York: Random House, 1999.
  438. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  439. Alibek’s work is largely a memoir and exposé of his work in the Soviet Union’s biological weapons program, written after he transferred to the Western side. He is critical of secretive Soviet work in this field.
  440. Find this resource:
  441. Bolton, Tal. “Putting Consent in Context: Military Research Subjects in Chemical Warfare Tests at Porton Down, UK.” Journal of Policy History 23.1 (2011): 53–73.
  442. DOI: 10.1017/S089803061000031XSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  443. Bolton’s work is concerned with the complexities inherent in obtaining consent from military subjects in secret projects, and he uses Cold War chemical and biological weapons experiments at Porton Down as a case study.
  444. Find this resource:
  445. Goldman, David I. “The Generals and the Germs: The Army Leadership’s Response to Nixon’s Review of Chemical and Biological Warfare Policies in 1969.” Journal of Military History 73.2 (April 2009): 531–569.
  446. DOI: 10.1353/jmh.0.0242Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  447. This article looks at the history leading to President Nixon’s unilateral rejection of offensive biological weapons in 1969 to understand the military’s role in the decision and change in policy.
  448. Find this resource:
  449. Gordin, Michael D. “The Anthrax Solution: The Sverdlovsk Incident and the Resolution of a Biological Weapons Controversy.” Journal of the History of Biology 30.3 (Fall 1997): 441–480.
  450. DOI: 10.1023/A:1004299907049Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  451. Interested in biological weapons verification clauses in treaties, Gordin studies the debate about whether the 1979 anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk was an accident caused by the biological weapons program there, or whether it was a natural eruption of the disease, by following the waves of investigations that took place over the years. The answer is relevant to the effectiveness of verification procedures.
  452. Find this resource:
  453. Ketchum, James S. Chemical Warfare Secrets Almost Forgotten: A Personal Story of Medical Testing of Army Volunteers with Incapacitating Chemical Agents during the Cold War (1955–1975). Santa Rosa, CA: ChemBooks, 2006.
  454. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  455. Ketchum’s book is a memoir of his personal participation as a researcher in human experiments under American military auspices, including experiments with psychedelic drugs, in an effort to find incapacitating agents and antidotes. The work touches on several of the testing labs that were used.
  456. Find this resource:
  457. Miller, Judith, Stephen Engelberg, and William Broad. Germs: Biological Warfare and America’s Secret War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.
  458. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  459. The three journalists investigate biological weapons developments and potentials during the second half of the 20th century, through the insights and eyes of insiders, to show the public about activities in the United States, Soviet Union, and Middle East. The book relies heavily on interviews and is geared toward a lay audience.
  460. Find this resource:
  461. Purkitt, Helen E., and Stephen Burgess. “South Africa’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Programme: A Historical and International Perspective.” Journal of Southern African Studies 28.2 (June 2002): 229–253.
  462. DOI: 10.1080/03057070220140685Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  463. South Africa developed its chemical and biological weapons program after World War II. Purkitt and Burgess note the international pressures (including neighboring wars of decolonization), as well as internal ones (including the racial fears of apartheid), that encouraged the program. They also study its downfall.
  464. Find this resource:
  465. Tucker, Jonathan B. “A Farewell to Germs: The U.S. Renunciation of Biological and Toxin Warfare, 1969–70.” International Security 27.1 (Summer 2002): 107–148.
  466. DOI: 10.1162/016228802320231244Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  467. Tucker studies why the United States ended its offensive chemical warfare program and policy and then discusses the legacy of that decision, noting that it was a good one, though flawed in some respects.
  468. Find this resource:
  469. Allegations of Use
  470.  
  471. The allegations of use of chemical and biological weapons were heated and, because of the nature of the Cold War, had the potential to tarnish superpower reputations or to escalate proxy wars. Although the Korean War was a multinational effort sanctioned by the United Nations, waging it was the responsibility of the United States more than any of its allies. Buchanan 2001 shows an awareness of this in examining the scientist Joseph Needham. The author notes that Needham’s sympathies toward and respect for China made him biased, a flaw that was particularly important because of the Korean War’s position in the Cold War. Examining Communist beliefs about the allegations is something that Weathersby 1998 and Leitenberg 1998 do by analyzing newly released primary sources, particularly Russian ones, to offer differing analyses of similar documents. More recently, there have been claims about a Communist release of chemical and biological weapons in Southeast Asia—the “yellow rain” scandal. Evans 1983 and Robinson, et al. 1987 look at the story relatively contemporaneous to its occurrence, both acknowledging political influence on the investigation, but the former also empathizes with the challenges of using witness evidence in a search for truth. With regard to Vietnam, Ellison 2011 takes a different tack and acknowledges America’s open use of compounds that are technically chemical weapons, such as tear gases. Finally, Wright 1990 takes a broader view of the US biological weapons program to understand how policy surrounding it was influenced by numerous elements in the wider American society.
  472.  
  473. Buchanan, Tom. “The Courage of Galileo: Joseph Needham and the ‘Germ Warfare’ Allegations in the Korean War.” History 86.284 (October 2001): 503–522.
  474. DOI: 10.1111/1468-229X.00203Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  475. Buchanan’s biography of Needham analyzes how personal biases, politics, and propaganda had an impact on British scientist Needham’s participation in Chinese allegations of germ warfare against the United States during the Korean War.
  476. Find this resource:
  477. Ellison, D. Hank. Chemical Warfare during the Vietnam War: Riot Control Agents in Combat. New York: Routledge, 2011.
  478. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  479. Ellison discusses the range of uses of nonlethal chemical weapons that the United States used frequently in the Vietnam conflict, as well as some of the reactions to them on the home front. Because historians have largely ignored nonlethal weapons, especially in warfare, Ellison’s work fills a major gap in the field.
  480. Find this resource:
  481. Evans, Grant. The Yellow Rainmakers: Are Chemical Weapons Being Used in Southeast Asia? London: Verso, 1983.
  482. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  483. Written during the investigation of alleged use of Soviet-sponsored “yellow rain” in Laos and Kampuchea, the author notes the scientific and human evidence available as well as the political influence upon the research. Although this book is not a history per se, it is a detailed examination of a historical question in Cold War chemical weapons history.
  484. Find this resource:
  485. Leitenberg, Milton. “New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis.” Cold War International History Project Bulletin 11 (December 1998): 185–199.
  486. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  487. Leitenberg tries to shed light on the debate about whether the United States used biological weapons in Korea by analyzing Soviet thinking about the claim, using newly found documents.
  488. Find this resource:
  489. Robinson, Julian, Jeanne Guillemin, and Matthew Meselson. “Yellow Rain: The Story Collapses.” Foreign Policy 68 (Autumn 1987): 100–117.
  490. DOI: 10.2307/1148733Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  491. This article addresses one of the major Cold War debates about chemical weapons, demonstrating that political claims sometimes outweigh scientific evidence.
  492. Find this resource:
  493. Weathersby, Kathryn. “Deceiving the Deceivers: Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, and the Allegations of Bacteriological Weapons Use in Korea.” Cold War International History Project Bulletin 11 (December 1998): 176–185.
  494. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  495. Weathersby presents and analyzes new Russian documents to suggest that the Chinese claims of biological warfare by the United States in Korea were mistaken and to explain why the Soviets supported these allegations.
  496. Find this resource:
  497. Wright, Susan. “Evolution of Biological Warfare Policy, 1945–1990.” In Preventing a Biological Arms Race. Edited by Susan Wright, 26–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
  498. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  499. Wright’s essay studies the US biological warfare program, as well as the related chemical warfare program when necessary, to understand its relationship with the nonmilitary forces in society, such as politics and public opinion.
  500. Find this resource:
  501. Beyond the Cold War
  502.  
  503. Although international law has continued to ban chemical and biological weapons, there have been times after the Cold War when these weapons have been rumored to be deployed, suspected of being used, or actually released on a local scale. The best literature on this period involves situations in the Middle East, specifically the Iran-Iraq War and Saddam Hussein’s gassing of part of Iraq’s Kurdish population. Both examples were ones in which there were rumors and concerns that Iraq had used gas, and both were proven to be true. There is a range of literature, but there are few truly historical, objective works. Other scholarship has been written for different disciplines, and there have been pieces published for politically partisan purposes. Among the relevant works for this bibliography is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) 1984 fact sheet (Robinson and Goldblat 1984), an early and brief overview of the chemical weapons actually found during the Iran-Iraq War. Spiers 2010, meanwhile, written well after the conflict, uses the war and its aftermath as a case study of the use of chemical and biological weapons. Mauroni 2000 focuses on the evolution of the American Chemical Corps, but Mauroni uses its behavior in the Gulf War as an example of its successful development. Pearson 1999, written after the conflict, is a detailed work on the United Nations’ efforts to investigate and monitor Iraq and chemical weapons after the war. More recently, Hiltermann 2007 recounts Saddam Hussein’s gas attacks on his own people. The author has academic credentials as well as personal experience in Iraq. On the biological weapons side, Sims 2001 is more interested in the practicalities of the most recent biological warfare treaty, looking back at threats to it during the last years of the 20th century, while Crone 1992 provides insight into the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in 1997, and its effectiveness.
  504.  
  505. Crone, Hugh D. Banning Chemical Weapons: The Scientific Background. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  506. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  507. Written before the Chemical Weapons Convention came into force, this book is still valuable for its chapters that explain for the layperson the characteristics of contemporary chemical weapons and the challenges of enforcing the treaty.
  508. Find this resource:
  509. Hiltermann, Joost B. A Poisonous Affair: American, Iraq, and the Gassing of Halabja. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  510. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  511. Hiltermann, a consultant and scholar, has written a book about Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds in Iraq, one that explores issues of any American indirect responsibility for the episode. The book’s evidence includes personal observation and interviews. It is arguably the most respected book in English on the topic.
  512. Find this resource:
  513. Mauroni, Albert J. America’s Struggle with Chemical-Biological Warfare. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.
  514. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  515. Mauroni’s book sees the Gulf War as a successful test of the US Chemical Corps.
  516. Find this resource:
  517. Pearson, Graham S. The UNSCOM Saga: Chemical and Biological Weapons Non-Proliferation. Global Issues Series. New York: St. Martin’s, 1999.
  518. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  519. This book, admired by diplomats and scholars, offers a detailed narrative of the work by the UN Special Commission on Iraq after the first Gulf War as a way to suggest lessons for policymakers and diplomats engaged in limiting weapons of mass destruction.
  520. Find this resource:
  521. Robinson, Julian Perry, and Jozef Goldblat. Chemical Warfare in the Iran-Iraq War. SIPRI Fact Sheet on Chemical Weapons 1. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 1984.
  522. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  523. Although not a history, per se, this fact sheet provides a good overview of some of the rumors, investigations, legal violations, and technical elements behind allegations of use of chemical and biological weapons in the Iran-Iraq War. Published by a renowned institute, it offers some reliable facts about the conflict.
  524. Find this resource:
  525. Sims, Nicholas A. The Evolution of Biological Disarmament. SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Studies 19. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  526. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  527. Part of the reputable SIPRI series, this book focuses on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972 and, more specifically, the challenges and issues that arose during the 1980–1998 period in efforts to make the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention more practical and effective.
  528. Find this resource:
  529. Spiers, Edward M. A History of Chemical and Biological Weapons. London: Reaktion, 2010.
  530. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  531. Although the book is a survey of 20th-century chemical and biological weapons, there is an in-depth section on Iraq illustrating the dangers of the armaments in the later part of the century.
  532. Find this resource:
  533. Controversies
  534.  
  535. Chemical and biological warfare has been a controversial topic from its inception in the 20th century, but three debates stand out: whether gas is a humane weapon, and thus an acceptable one in the military arsenal (see Humane Debate (Legal and Moral Issues)); whether these weapons have been used, even though they have been banned (Allegations of Use); and the ethics of experiments, particularly those on ignorant human subjects (Human Experimentation).
  536.  
  537. Humane Debate (Legal and Moral Issues)
  538.  
  539. Haldane 1925, by a chemist, and Lefebure 1927, by another scientist, are early examinations of the controversy about whether gas is a humane weapon. Haldane came out loudly in favor of gas, but Lefebure was a bit more worried about the potential dangers of a world filled with such a weapon and questioned whether it could be effectively banned. Although neither are pieces of professional historical scholarship, both are key to understanding the debate fully. Fujitani 1991 studies the debate in the context of the event that proved to be the legal focal point for the political, popular, and scientific interests: the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925. Saunders 1965 and Price 1997 are interesting because they represent more modern arguments about why gas should be used (Saunders) and why it has been misperceived (Price). The former argues from the perspective of a military officer, while the latter is the view of a political scientist. Hammond 1999 explains how misconceptions developed and, in the author’s eyes, what they are. The works in this section are not all by historians but are key to understanding a core controversy about gas as a weapon.
  540.  
  541. Fujitani, Kevin T. “The United States and Chemical Warfare: The 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol and Its Legacy.” MA diss., University of Hawai‘i, 1991.
  542. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  543. The negotiations and debate about American ratification of the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925 form the focus of this thesis, a work that discusses the treaty, its formation, and its legacy in more depth than other sources.
  544. Find this resource:
  545. Haldane, J. B. S. Callinicus: A Defence of Chemical Warfare. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1925.
  546. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  547. Haldane, a British scientist who had lived through World War I and had some experience with chemical warfare, advocated gas use in the future because of its potential to be effective and potentially more humane than other weapons.
  548. Find this resource:
  549. Hammond, James W. Poison Gas: The Myths versus Reality. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1999.
  550. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  551. Hammond argues that gas is not as bad as popular belief claims. He discusses how misconceptions developed over the 20th century, attempts to educate the general reader, and clarifies that he is not making a recommendation about using gas.
  552. Find this resource:
  553. Lefebure, Victor. The Riddle of the Rhine. New York: Chemical Foundation, 1927.
  554. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  555. Lefebure, a British scientist, wanted to acknowledge the challenges of banning gas (practically speaking) in a public forum during an era in which chemical disarmament was widely discussed.
  556. Find this resource:
  557. Price, Richard M. The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997.
  558. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  559. Written by a political scientist, this book follows the evolution of attitudes, particularly morally based ones, about chemical warfare during the 20th century to explain why gas has such a bad reputation compared to other weapons.
  560. Find this resource:
  561. Saunders, David M. “The Biological/Chemical Warfare Challenge.” Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute 91.9 (1965): 44–51.
  562. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  563. Saunders argues that there should be a positive view of gas because of its history as well as its current and future potential. This is dated in that it was written during the Cold War, but it offers insight into traditional analyses of gas.
  564. Find this resource:
  565. Allegations of Use
  566.  
  567. Many of the accusations about use arose after chemical and biological weapons were widely outlawed in the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, but Douglas 2009 makes it clear that historical condemnations arose before the post-World War I legal ban and could be bolstered by cloudy evidence. Buchanan 2001, Leitenberg 1998, and Weathersby 1998 all study allegations of use in the Korean War, the first by looking at biases of Western scientists, and the latter two by carefully analyzing Russian and Chinese documents, respectively. Robinson, et al. 1987 and Evans 1983 dedicate themselves to the question of whether “yellow rain” was a weapon of the Communists or simply bee pollen. Gordin 1997 tries to ascertain whether the Soviets purposefully used anthrax or accidentally released it in Sverdlovsk during the Cold War.
  568.  
  569. Buchanan, Tom. “The Courage of Galileo: Joseph Needham and the ‘Germ Warfare’ Allegations in the Korean War.” History 86.284 (December 2001): 503–522.
  570. DOI: 10.1111/1468-229X.00203Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  571. Chinese allegations of germ warfare use by the United States in Korea spurred an international investigation, one that incorporated politics and propaganda as much as science.
  572. Find this resource:
  573. Douglas, R. M. “Did Britain Use Chemical Weapons in Mandatory Iraq?” Journal of Modern History 81.4 (December 2009): 859–887.
  574. DOI: 10.1086/605488Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  575. Douglas debunks the common assertion that the British used gas in interwar Iraq, tracing some of reasons why the claim developed as well as why it is false.
  576. Find this resource:
  577. Evans, Grant. The Yellow Rainmakers: Are Chemical Weapons Being Used in Southeast Asia? London: Verso, 1983.
  578. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  579. Evans studies the question of whether yellow rain really existed, how a major investigation came to be launched into it, and why allegations of its use became so politically charged in the Cold War era.
  580. Find this resource:
  581. Gordin, Michael D. “The Anthrax Solution: The Sverdlovsk Incident and the Resolution of a Biological Weapons Controversy.” Journal of the History of Biology 30.3 (Fall 1997): 441–480.
  582. DOI: 10.1023/A:1004299907049Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  583. Gordin recounts the history of three waves of investigation of an anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk in the USSR, an incident that was controversial because some believed it was the result of an accident of biological weaponry rather than a natural eruption of the disease.
  584. Find this resource:
  585. Leitenberg, Milton. “New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis.” Cold War International History Project Bulletin 11 (December 1998): 185–199.
  586. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  587. Leitenberg offers his analysis of Soviet allegations of biological weapons use by the United States in Korea by looking at new documents. He offers a brief context for the claims.
  588. Find this resource:
  589. Robinson, Julian, Jeanne Guillemin, and Matthew Meselson. “Yellow Rain: The Story Collapses.” Foreign Policy 68 (Autumn 1987): 100–117.
  590. DOI: 10.2307/1148733Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  591. The authors, writing while the yellow rain debate was politically active, argue that evidence fails to prove the American allegations of yellow rain use in the 1980s, but that US claims remain. Although not a pure historical piece, this article is informative for those studying the yellow rain controversy.
  592. Find this resource:
  593. Weathersby, Kathryn. “Deceiving the Deceivers: Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, and the Allegations of Bacteriological Weapons Use in Korea.” Cold War International History Project Bulletin 11 (December 1998): 176–185.
  594. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  595. Soviet claims of biological weapons use by the United States in Korea are examined and analyzed using Soviet documents that have come to light.
  596. Find this resource:
  597. Human Experimentation
  598.  
  599. Offensive and defensive chemical and biological weapons experiments often required human subjects, although sometimes the men were ignorant of their role. Bolton 2011 looks at how much consent was involved in tests at Britain’s chief research station, Porton Down, and Evans 2000 recounts the range of experiments there. Sturdy 1999 studies World War I Britain and physiologists only, unlike the broader scope of Evans’s work. While Smith 2008 studies American experiments during World War II, Ketchum 2006 reveals the author’s personal role in Cold War tests. Goodwin 1998 shows that experiments occurred in other nations, such as Australia, and that the reluctance of the government to acknowledge these tests can last for decades. Cole 1988, though, tries to reveal the kinds of tests that occur in larger populations (ones outside of testing centers). Parker 1996 looks at those who were damaged by chemical and biological weapons, including the subjects of experiments as well as their children and others who faced damage from the weapons. This section does not include involuntary human experiments where there was no attempt to acquire consent or where there were clearly illegal experiments, such as those by Japan’s Unit 731 during World War II. For books on that, please see Barenblatt 2004 and Harris 2002, cited under World War II: Biological Warfare.
  600.  
  601. Bolton, Tal. “Putting Consent in Context: Military Research Subjects in Chemical Warfare Tests at Porton Down, UK.” Journal of Policy History 23.1 (2011): 53–73.
  602. DOI: 10.1017/S089803061000031XSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  603. The author examines the complexities involved in obtaining consent, particularly from military Cold War volunteers, in chemical and biological weapons testing at Porton Down, especially because of the secrecy involved in such experiments. Bolton emphasizes historiography and theory about consent.
  604. Find this resource:
  605. Cole, Leonard A. Clouds of Secrecy: The Army’s Germ Warfare Tests over Populated Areas. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1988.
  606. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  607. Cole writes to expose military biological weapons experiments in the 1950s and 1960s in major American cities as part of defensive research. He includes reactions to them, including legal cases by victims.
  608. Find this resource:
  609. Evans, Rob. Gassed: British Chemical Warfare Experiments on Humans at Porton Down. London: House of Stratus, 2000.
  610. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  611. Although others have discussed human experimentation at Porton Down, Evans writes a detailed history of the topic, examining its use over a long period of the laboratory’s history from the World War I years through the Cold War, and finishing in the current century with the impact of the history on the lab today.
  612. Find this resource:
  613. Goodwin, Bridget. Keen as Mustard: Britain’s Horrific Chemical Warfare Experiments in Australia. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland Press, 1998.
  614. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  615. Goodwin follows the human story behind Australia’s mustard gas experiments upon individuals, why they took place, and what happened in the decades afterward.
  616. Find this resource:
  617. Ketchum, James S. Chemical Warfare Secrets Almost Forgotten: A Personal Story of Medical Testing of Army Volunteers with Incapacitating Chemical Agents during the Cold War (1955–1975). Santa Rosa, CA: ChemBooks, 2006.
  618. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  619. Although Ketchum was a scientist involved in testing chemical weapons, his work was performed on military volunteers and included weapons such as psychedelic drugs. He recounts his work, including the psychological aspects and potential beneficial legacies, and does address some of the issues raised by this kind of testing.
  620. Find this resource:
  621. Parker, John. The Killing Factory: The Top Secret World of Germ and Chemical Warfare. London: Smith Gryphon, 1996.
  622. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  623. Although Parker covers the story of 20th-century chemical and biological weapons, his emphasis is on the people who experienced the effects of these weapons, directly or indirectly, sometimes as experimental subjects.
  624. Find this resource:
  625. Smith, Susan L. “Mustard Gas and American Race-based Human Experimentation in World War II.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36.3 (Fall 2008): 517–521.
  626. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.299.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  627. Smith shines a light on the dangers of a particular kind of human experiment with mustard gas in the United States: those that were influenced by racial thought during World War II.
  628. Find this resource:
  629. Sturdy, Steve. “War as Experiment: Physiology, Innovation and Administration in Britain, 1914–1918: The Case of Chemical Warfare.” In War, Medicine and Modernity. Edited by Roger Cooter, Mark Harrison, and Steve Sturdy, 65–84. Thrupp, UK: Sutton, 1999.
  630. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  631. This article is limited to World War I and the work of a specific type of physiologist. The emphasis is more on the scientists than the subjects.
  632. Find this resource:
  633. Scientific Benefits
  634.  
  635. Scientists have often claimed that chemical and biological weapons research can yield nonmilitary benefits to societies. These include insecticides, the focus of Jansen 2000, a work on early-20th-century Germany, and Russell 2001, an examination of the mid-20th century. Depending on one’s perspective, using gas to quell domestic unrest was seen as a less dangerous method of crowd control; this is the topic Jones 1978 considers. Vilensky 2005 focuses on the development of a gas, noting that the research into an antidote proved to have medical benefits for victims of a rare disease. Finally, King 2003 uses the threat of biological weapons to demand that his medical colleagues play a role in reacting to anxiety surrounding these weapons, especially their possible use in bioterrorism.
  636.  
  637. Jansen, Sarah. “Chemical-Warfare Techniques for Insect Control: Insect ‘Pests’ in Germany before and after World War I.” Endeavour 24.1 (2000): 28–33.
  638. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-9327(99)01261-2Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  639. The author studies how chemical warfare became incorporated into efforts to control insects in Germany as a result of gas’s development during World War I. Gas developed as a weapon was thus relevant beyond the battlefield.
  640. Find this resource:
  641. Jones, Daniel P. “From Military to Civilian Technology: The Introduction of Tear Gas for Civil Riot Control.” Technology and Culture 19.2 (April 1978): 151–168.
  642. DOI: 10.2307/3103718Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  643. Tear gas became a police gas, rather than a war gas, in the United States after World War I, when it came to be seen as a humane way to manage unruly behavior.
  644. Find this resource:
  645. King, Nicholas B. “The Influence of Anxiety: September 11, Bioterrorism, and American Public Health.” Journal of the History of Medicine & Allied Sciences 58.4 (October 2003): 433–441.
  646. DOI: 10.1093/jhmas/jrg021Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  647. King’s article notes that bioterror is not a new threat, nor is the anxiety it causes. He argues that insights can be gleaned from the study of anxiety produced by threats of biological warfare in the past, and that these can be applied to managing responses to contemporary threats.
  648. Find this resource:
  649. Russell, Edmund. War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  650. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  651. Russell’s book is an innovative look at how chemical warfare and insecticides have reinforced and augmented one another. For instance, chemicals have been used to “wage war” on insects from World War I to the1960s while insecticides have played a role in helping soldiers fight conflicts.
  652. Find this resource:
  653. Vilensky, Joel A. Dew of Death: The Story of Lewisite, America’s World War I Weapon of Mass Destruction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005.
  654. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  655. Vilensky uses lewisite as a case study of chemical warfare, following its history from its inception as a weapon in World War I (when it remained untried on the field). A segment of the book discusses the medical benefits arising out of scientific work on antidotes.
  656. Find this resource:
  657. Tear Gas
  658.  
  659. Although “chemical weapons” usually refers to lethal gases, tear gas is a subset of it. Its use was often controversial during the interwar period, especially outside of America. Jones 1978 studies the experience of the United States, while Shoul 2008 examines the tensions the British felt about using tear gas for similar peacekeeping purposes in their colonies. In Ellison 2011, the concentration is on tear gas and other nonlethal gases widely used in Vietnam.
  660.  
  661. Ellison, Hank D. Chemical Warfare during the Vietnam War: Riot Control Agents in Combat. New York: Routledge, 2011.
  662. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  663. Ellison discusses assorted riot control agents and nonlethal weapons used by the United States and other parties during the Vietnam War.
  664. Find this resource:
  665. Jones, Daniel P. “From Military to Civilian Technology: The Introduction of Tear Gas for Civil Riot Control.” Technology and Culture 19.2 (April 1978): 151–168.
  666. DOI: 10.2307/3103718Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  667. This article focuses on a shift in American policy from viewing tear gas as a war gas to deploying it as a peacetime gas used by police after World War I, and the consequent movement of tear gas as a tool of the military to one in private and domestic hands.
  668. Find this resource:
  669. Shoul, Simeon. “British Tear Gas Doctrine between the World Wars.” War in History 15.2 (April 2008): 168–190.
  670. DOI: 10.1177/0968344507087002Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  671. Although there were some voices in the British Empire that supported tear gas use, general public opinion was antigas, and thus delayed the adoption of tear gas use in nonbattle situations and inhibited the development of an effective tear gas industry during the interwar period.
  672. Find this resource:
  673. Environmental Issues
  674.  
  675. The legacy of chemical and biological weapons research, preparation, and use includes its impact on the environment. The brief Military History article WWI Chemical Weapons Testing Site is a discussion of the contamination around a US university. Gordon, et al. 1994 puts this in context by describing how the chemical materials got there and providing photos. Shulman 1992 studies toxic pollution around numerous sites in the United States because of storage or other activities. Smith 2011 looks at more reckless pollution that arose through the dumping of mustard gas in the oceans. Szasz 1995 compares two areas deliberately contaminated for tests of weapons of mass destruction, including the monitoring of those sites in the decades after the contamination.
  676.  
  677. Gordon, Martin K., Barry R. Sude, and Ruth Ann Overbeck. “Chemical Testing in the Great War: The American University Experiment Station.” Washington History 6.1 (Spring/Summer 1994): 28–45.
  678. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  679. This article explains the history of American University and its deliberate participation in chemical warfare research during World War I, as well as the findings today of toxic remains of that research in the neighboring areas. There are numerous pictures.
  680. Find this resource:
  681. Shulman, Seth. The Threat at Home: Confronting the Toxic Legacy of the U.S. Military. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.
  682. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  683. Shulman’s book is concerned with military pollution caused by waste from objects such as gases, and how they can impact the people who live near the dangerous sites. This is as much a political book as a historical one, but it sheds light on one of the legacies of chemical and biological weapons on the home front.
  684. Find this resource:
  685. Smith, Susan L. “Toxic Legacy: Mustard Gas in the Sea around Us.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39.1 (Spring 2011): 34–40.
  686. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00546.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  687. Smith notes that the dumping of gas is one of the ways that the sea has become polluted, and that dangers in and from the seas have at times been the result of the international practice of dropping assorted chemical weapons into deep waters.
  688. Find this resource:
  689. Szasz, Ferenc M. “The Impact of World War II on the Land: Gruinard Island, Scotland, and Trinity Site, New Mexico as Case Studies.” Environmental History Review 19.4 (Winter 1995): 15–30.
  690. DOI: 10.2307/3984690Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  691. Szasz’s article studies a nuclear test site in the United States and a biological one in the United Kingdom to recount how the land has been cleaned, assessed, and changed in the years since the World War II–era experiments.
  692. Find this resource:
  693. “WWI Chemical Weapons Testing Site Continues to Yield Materiel.” Military History 24.10 (January 2008): 12.
  694. Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
  695. This brief article reveals that physical legacies of the chemical weapons work at American University during World War I are coming to light in the surrounding areas.
  696. Find this resource:
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!