Canada’s Role in Allied Biological Warfare Planning in the Second World War

2013 ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 187-202
Author(s):  
Anthony Rimmington

A number of long-range research programs were initiated by the Red Army’s biological warfare facilities which would bring about the development and application of a range of civil and defense vaccines during the Second World War. As a result, 8.5 million Soviet troops were vaccinated against plague, 90,000 against anthrax and an unknown number against tularemia. In addition, botulinum toxoids and a vaccine against brucellosis were developed. Although the Red Army’s BW institutes made some useful contribution to the development of antibiotics production, it was UK and US scientists who made critical contributions of technology. The same BW facilities also launched a program for the manufacture of bacteriophage preparations which drew heavily on technology developed in Tbilisi.


2018 ◽  
pp. 175-186
Author(s):  
Anthony Rimmington

During the immediate post-war period, Lavrentiy Beria, the Soviet minister of internal affairs, continued to maintain control of the Soviet biological warfare program and to further develop its offensive capabilities. In his new role, Beria and his staff had access to biological weapons specialists captured as a result of the Soviet victory in the Second World War. In the post-war period, Beria maintained the NIIEG facility at remote Kirov as the key hub of the Soviet BW program. During the period 1947 to 1949, a new military BW facility was spun off from the Kirov institute. Based in Sverdlovsk it was known as the USSR Ministry of Defense’s Scientific-Research Institute of Hygiene. In 1953, a third military BW facility, the Scientific-Research Sanitary Institute, was created at Zagorsk. The Vozrozhdenie Island open-air BW proving ground was also expanded after the war.


Author(s):  
Corinna Peniston-Bird ◽  
Emma Vickers

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (185) ◽  
pp. 543-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Schmidt

This article draws on Marxist theories of crises, imperialism, and class formation to identify commonalities and differences between the stagnation of the 1930s and today. Its key argument is that the anti-systemic movements that existed in the 1930s and gained ground after the Second World War pushed capitalists to turn from imperialist expansion and rivalry to the deep penetration of domestic markets. By doing so they unleashed strong economic growth that allowed for social compromise without hurting profits. Yet, once labour and other social movements threatened to shift the balance of class power into their favor, capitalist counter-reform began. In its course, global restructuring, and notably the integration of Russia and China into the world market, created space for accumulation. The cause for the current stagnation is that this space has been used up. In the absence of systemic challenges capitalists have little reason to seek a major overhaul of their accumulation strategies that could help to overcome stagnation. Instead they prop up profits at the expense of the subaltern classes even if this prolongs stagnation and leads to sharper social divisions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document