488 R Hediger texts about Chips’ early engagement in war Lemish tells it this way: Chips and his handler John P Rowell were patrolling a beach in Sicily in the early morning when ‘what appeared to be a small grass-covered hut’ proved in fact to be ‘a camouflaged pillbox’ When a ‘machine gun opened fire’, Chips broke loose from Rowell, trailing his leash and running full-steam toward the hut Moments later, the machine-gun fire stopped and an Italian soldier appeared with Chips slashing and biting at his arms and throat Three soldiers followed with their arms raised in surrender But just a sentence after presenting this assured version of the story, Lemish recognizes the limits of our firm knowledge about this episode: ‘What actually occurred in the pillbox is known only by the Italians and, of course, the dog’ (1996, pp 74–75) Nonetheless, Chips’s fame grew later that night when he was reported to have alerted to ‘ten Italian soldiers approaching on the road’ (Lemish 1996, p 75) Chips’s vigorous and seemingly voluntary participation was key to his designation as a hero dog But how voluntary was Chips’s behavior in this scenario? Kistler’s account of this story differs significantly from Lemish’s Kistler writes that Rowell unleashed Chips and ordered him to attack Chips charged, and was hit by several bullets, yet knocked one machine gun over, burning his hair on the hot barrel, then grabbed the gunner by the throat and ripped out his jugular The other two Italians fled and were shot by American troops (2011, pp 28–29) While the injuries to Chips are similar in both accounts, several points of emphasis in the stories differ, including just what exactly the dog did to the Italians and who really initiated the action in the first place—Chips or Rowell From these sources, it is therefore difficult to conclude when or if Chips’s participation in the war effort becomes abuse At issue is partly the nature/nurture question: to what extent is such protecting and attacking behavior natural, and to what extent is it motivated by human intervention? As I argue in the introduction to Animals and war, this set of questions quickly grows complex and vexed, and is finally beyond the scope of this chapter (2013, pp 3–5 and passim) Even if one believes Chips was an entirely willing participant in war, far too many unambivalent cases of abuse and violence toward dogs exist For instance, after World War I concluded, Lemish writes,