“Military Technology and Its Domesticity During World War I” contains elaborate historical and technological details pertaining to the technological advances that have made the most dramatic impact in World War I. It is quite clear the author, Igor Shandler, establishes an argument expressing the idea that both Axis and Allies powers strived to create technological advances that would benefit them in warfare. Thus, the pressure to surpass the opposing power’s technological progress was tremendous. Such competition, therefore, sparked many technological innovations to be developed. By providing information concerning dreadnoughts, the Curtiss pusher biplane, the machine gun, and chemicals, it seems as though the author effectively provides evidence that supports his argument. By stressing the constant desire to obtain superiority through technological means that both sides possessed, the author explains how eager they were to demonstrate the power of modern inventions in the war. At first, benefits that the dreadnoughts offered the British navy are described. By evaluating the aspects of dreadnoughts that made them so effective, the author supports his argument. Such support includes the idea that “the ship was created on British territory to serve the purpose of intimidating the enemies in seeing how Great Britain was very sophisticated technologically and could deter any enemy through its superior power” (Military Technology and Its Domesticity During World War I 2). As the American Curtiss pusher biplane is mentioned, the author writes, “they were statements of a society that had new ideas and was willing to incorporate them” (Military Technology and Its Domesticity During World War I 3). Such planes revolutionized methods of conducting warfare. Battles were no longer fought strictly on land. Therefore, the effect of the need to become technologically advanced is demonstrated properly by the author. By arguing that the machine gun is a symbol of a growing industrial revolution, the author further supports his argument. Last but not least, the author describes how a German chemist, Fritz Haber, developed chlorine gas because Germans hoped that it would bring an end to the tedious war. This idea ultimately depicts the drive for victory that both powers possessed. All in all, the enormous amount of support that is provided pertaining to the argument seems to be quite persuasive and flawless.

It seems as though the author remains neutral between both the Allies and Axis powers. In fact, there does not appear to be an underlying bias favoring either power that was involved in World War I. The strengths of both sides and emphasized equally. Taking this into consideration, the author seems to be an individual who considers both sides of an argument. By refusing to include a personal bias in his or her work, a fair perspective concerning historical information is granted to readers. When questioning the source’s reliability, one might infer that this source possesses credibility. Throughout the information provided, citations from multiple professors, experts, and textbooks are included. Additionally, Igor Shandler is himself a professor at the University of New York who has designed this particular source as part of his curriculum. Therefore, the information is without a doubt legitimate.