- Creation
-
Creator (Definite): War Bureau of ConsultantsDate: 19 Feb 1942
- Current Holder(s)
-
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Created byWar Bureau of Consultants
19 Feb 1942
Description:'CHRONOLOGY ON B.W.
...
August 26, 1942 - War Research Service established in Federal Security Agency. George W. Merck appointed Director.
...
January 11, 1944 - Sub-Committee of Biological Warfare set up by Joint Chiefs of Staff to evaluate intelligence reports of enemy preparation to use B.W. George W. Merck appointed Chairman of the Sub-Committee.
...
June 8, 1944 - President approves transfer of B.W. activities to War Department.
June 15, 1944 - George W. Merck appointed a Consultant to the Secretary of War on all matters pertaining to biological warfare.
...
October 11, 1944 - United States Biological Warfare Committee established. A policy forming Committee to advise the Secretary of War on B.W. George W. Merck appointed Chairman.' (ff. 8-11)
'Early Steps Taken by the U.S. Government in Relation to B.W.
Before there was any unification of activity in b.w. several United States Government groups considered this subject independently and their efforts form the logical beginning of any narrative.
...
... the Secretary of War, evidently feeling that further study was necessary before issuing directives to implement these conclusions, requested only the formation of the two civilian committees made up of the highest level of scientists from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council. These two civilian committess were merged into one and named for purposes of security, the WBC Committee, with Dr. E.B. Fred as Chairman. This Committee made a complete study and its reports have formed the basis for all future planning, both military and civilian, in the realm of b.w.' (ff. 13-14)
-
Quoted byG.W. Merck, 'Historical Report of War Research Service', Nov. 1944. National Academy of Sciences Archives. Committees on Biological Warfare. Box 5 Series 4: War Research Service.
Description:'Early Steps Taken by the U.S. Government in Relation to B.W.
Before there was any unification of activity in b.w. several United States Government groups considered this subject independently and their efforts form the logical beginning of any narrative.
...
... the WBC Committee, with Dr. E.B. Fred as Chairman. This Committee made a complete study and its reports have formed the basis for all future planning, both military and civilian, in the realm of b.w.
In many respects the conclusions of the WBC Committee contradicted the opinions previously mentioned. This Committee stated that the biological warfare was distinctly feasible and that steps should be taken by the United States to formulate defensive and offensive measures. All diseases which might be involved in attacks on human, animal and plant life were considered by the Committee, and were further evaluated according to their ease of dissemination. Admitting that much of this survey was necessarily theoretical, the report pointed out that "The value of biological warfare will be a debatable question until it has been clearly proven or disproven by experience.... The wise assumption is that any method which appears to offer advantages to a nation at war will be vigorously employed by that nation. There is but one logical course to pursue, namely to study the possibilities of such warfare from every angle, make very preparation for reducing its effectiveness and thereby reduce the likelihood of its use." (See Section II, p. 10.)
During the interval when this comprehensive and voluminous report was under consideration by the War Department, steps were also taken to establish liason with interested authorities in Canada and Great Britain whose work in b.w. was in a considerably -3- [ff. 14-15] more advanced stage than ours.
In March 24, 1942, the Secretary of War submitted the first report of the WBC Committee to the General Staff with the suggestion that a branch be set up under a suitable officer to make plans to meet the potential dangers of b.w. (See Section II, pp. 11-12.)' (ff. 13-15)
