Abstract
Abstract Historians have long recognised that DDT’s fame began with extraordinary propaganda late in the Second World War, yet heroic narratives that centre the chemical still shape historical understanding. Two false assumptions inform much of the existing scholarship on wartime insect control: one is that without DDT the Allies had no protection from malaria and typhus; the other is that DDT was significantly more toxic than any alternative insecticide available. This paper tells a very different story of wartime insecticides. We recontextualise DDT in the wider wartime technological landscape and in so doing show the enduring significance of the natural insecticide, pyrethrum. DDT was never solely responsible for protecting troops and civilians from malaria and typhus and its deployment did not render all existing insecticides obsolete. Claims about the significance of DDT often work by writing out the existence of alternative methods of controlling vectors or by downplaying the efficacy of existing materials and practices.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: HoST - Journal of History of Science and Technology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
