The Meuse-Argonne offensive, a decisive battle during the First World War, is the largest frontline commitment in American military history involving 1·2 million U.S. troops. With over 26 000 deaths among American soldiers, the offensive is considered “America's deadliest battle”. The Meuse-Argonne offensive coincided with the highly fatal second wave of the influenza pandemic in 1918. In Europe and in U.S. Army training camps, 1918 pandemic influenza killed around 45 000 American soldiers making it questionable which battle should be regarded “America's deadliest”. The origin of the influenza pandemic has been inextricably linked with the men who occupied the military camps and trenches during the First World War. The disease had a profound impact, both for the military apparatus and for the individual soldier. It struck all the armies and might have claimed toward 100 000 fatalities among soldiers overall during the conflict while rendering millions ineffective. Yet, it remains unclear whether 1918 pandemic influenza had an impact on the course of the First World War. Still, even until this day, virological and bacteriological analysis of preserved archived remains of soldiers that succumbed to 1918 pandemic influenza has important implications for preparedness for future pandemics. These aspects are reviewed here in a context of citations, images, and documents illustrating the tragic events of 1918.

The emergence of tetanus in wounded soldiers during the first months of the First World War (WWI) resulted from combat on richly manured fields in Belgium and Northern France, the use of modern explosives that produced deep tissue wounds and the intimate contact between the soldier and the soil upon which he fought. In response, routine prophylactic injections with anti-tetanus serum were given to wounded soldiers removed from the firing line. Subsequently, a steep fall in the incidence of tetanus was observed on both sides of the conflict. Because of fatal serum anaphylaxis associated with administration of serum at a time when purification methods still needed to be improved, it must be presumed that tens to hundreds of men might have died as a result of the routine administration of anti-tetanus serum during WWI. Yet anti-tetanus serum undoubtedly prevented life threatening tetanus among several hundred thousands of wounded men, making it one of the most successful preventive interventions in wartime medicine. After the abrupt fall in tetanus incidence in 1914 due to introduction of anti-tetanus serum, the incidence of the disease tended to become even lower as the war went on. This was probably due to earlier and more thorough surgical treatment, consisting of opening, cleaning, excision and drainage of wounds as early as possible. In this overview, recent battlefield findings from the Meuse-Argonne offensive in 1918 are used to illustrate common practices employed in the prevention of tetanus during WWI.

Summary This article is looking at colonial governance with regard to leprosy, comparing two settings of the Dutch colonial empire: Suriname and the Dutch East Indies. Whereas segregation became formal policy in Suriname, leprosy sufferers were hardly ever segregated in the Dutch East Indies. We argue that the perceived needs to maintain a healthy labour force and to prevent contamination of white populations were the driving forces behind the difference in response to the disease. Wherever close contact between European planters and a non-European labour force existed together with conditions of forced servitude (either slavery or indentured labour), the Dutch response was to link leprosy to racial inferiority in order to legitimise compulsory segregation. This mainly happened in Suriname. We would like to suggest that forced labour, leprosy and compulsory segregation were connected through the ‘colonial gaze’, legitimising compulsory segregation of leprosy sufferers who had become useless to the plantation economy.

This paper examines the relationship, often claimed as beneficial, between war and advances in medicine and surgery. Some of the conflicting opinions that have been expressed are discussed. Military medicine in general is conservative and non-innovative. Some medical advances have indeed originated in war, but many other efforts were failures and are forgotten. The application of others is limited to their particular time and place, while some would have been made sooner or later in any case. In additon, the basic objective of military medicine is to maintain the strength of the fighting force rather than to help the individual, and some doctors have indeed been involved in developing means of destruction.