Comments on: Considering the Unthinkable: Chemical Weapons in Modern Warfare http://etc.technologyandculture.net/2008/04/considering-the-unthinkable/ The International Quarterly of the Society for the History of Technology Fri, 02 May 2008 11:31:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Charles Stephenson http://etc.technologyandculture.net/2008/04/considering-the-unthinkable/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Charles Stephenson Fri, 02 May 2008 11:31:31 +0000 http://etc.technologyandculture.net/2008/04/20/considering-the-unthinkable-chemical-weapons-in-modern-warfare/#comment-20 I am grateful to Dr. Showalter for his favourable comments towards The Admiral’s Secret Weapon: Lord Dundonald and the Origins of Chemical Warfare. He is certainly correct in arguing that the ‘concluding hypothesis’ he mentions - that in the early stages of World War I crucial elements of the “Plans” fell into German hands and inspired their initial use of poison gas – is not entirely credible, and that is the reason why I argued exactly the opposite case. On p. 140 I wrote: ‘if it be deemed permissible to employ a legal metaphor, had Lord Dundonald been charged with, albeit unwittingly, supplying the thought behind the German [1914] chemical warfare scheme, he would, on the evidence, have been found ‘Not Guilty’.’ A little later, on p. 143, I go on to say: ‘The evolution [of early German chemical warfare techniques] required no intervention from any long-dead admiral, or indeed his still-living grandson; it was a logical progression in the search for an effective weapon [. . .].’ This matter is, I think, one that should be stated clearly, otherwise anyone reading Dr. Showalter’s otherwise excellent piece runs the risk of being seriously misled. I am grateful to Dr. Showalter for his favourable comments towards The Admiral’s Secret Weapon: Lord Dundonald and the Origins of Chemical Warfare. He is certainly correct in arguing that the ‘concluding hypothesis’ he mentions – that in the early stages of World War I crucial elements of the “Plans” fell into German hands and inspired their initial use of poison gas – is not entirely credible, and that is the reason why I argued exactly the opposite case.

On p. 140 I wrote: ‘if it be deemed permissible to employ a legal metaphor, had Lord Dundonald been charged with, albeit unwittingly, supplying the thought behind the German [1914] chemical warfare scheme, he would, on the evidence, have been found ‘Not Guilty’.’

A little later, on p. 143, I go on to say: ‘The evolution [of early German chemical warfare techniques] required no intervention from any long-dead admiral, or indeed his still-living grandson; it was a logical progression in the search for an effective weapon [. . .].’

This matter is, I think, one that should be stated clearly, otherwise anyone reading Dr. Showalter’s otherwise excellent piece runs the risk of being seriously misled.

]]>