We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
By 1918, four years of total war had produced a complete mobilization of scientists, scholars and their institutions throughout Europe, the British Empire, and the United States. Public men spoke freely of the implications of a ‘technological war’ run by engineers and chemists. And in the years following the Armistice, historians were eager to record the achievements of the professions, and the effects of the war on their self-image. Memories of the First World War, as Paul Fussell reminds us, remain and shape the texture of our daily life. The parapet, wire and mud have become permanent features of human existence. In a similar way, the war of 1914–18 had enduring consequences for science and scientists, rarely appreciated until the end of the Second World War. Scholars and savants deserted their classrooms for the trenches, industries and war offices, while professional bodies turned themselves into useful extensions of military departments. By October 1914, the infamous Professors' Manifesto, with its Appeal to the Cultured Peoples of the World had identified German science with German war aims, and the natural sciences were fully at war. Scientific knowledge applied to the war was – at one and the same time – a fulfilment of the Enlightenment project of reason, and a violation of the Enlightenment ethos of humanism and internationalism.
1 See Yerkes, Robert M. (ed.), The New World of Science: Its Development during the War, New York, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Fussell, Paul, The Great War and Modern Memory, London, 1973.Google Scholar
3 It is interesting that in their important collection on Science, Technology and the Military (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, 22), 2 vols., Dordrecht, 1988Google Scholar, the editors, Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart pay little attention to the importance of the First World War in setting the stage – and in some cases, training the actors – of the Second World War.
4 See Schroeder, Brigitte, ‘Caractéristiques des relations scientifiques internationales, 1870–1914’, Cahiers d'histoire mondiale (1966), 10, 166–77Google Scholar; Gruber, Carol S., Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of the Higher Learning, Baton Rouge, 1975Google Scholar; and Rudy, Willis, Total War and Twentieth-Century Higher Learning: Universities of the Western World in the First and Second World Wars, London, 1991.Google Scholar
5 ‘An die Kulturwelt: Ein Aufruf’. For its history, see Heilbron, John, Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck as Spokesman for German Science, Berkeley, 1986, 66–71.Google Scholar
6 Winter, J. M., ‘Catastrophe and culture: recent trends in the historiography of the First World War’, Journal of Modern History (1992), 64, 525–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Kevles, Daniel, ‘Into hostile political camps: the reorganisation of international science in World War One’, Isis (1971), 62, 47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Badash, Lawrence, ‘British and American views of the German menace in World War I’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1979), 34, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 For the French position, see Paul, Harry, The Sorcerer's Apprentice: The French Scientist's Image of German Science, Gainsville, 1972Google Scholar, and From Knowledge to Power: The Rise of the Science Empire in France, 1860–1939, Cambridge, 1985Google Scholar. A familiar argument, circulating in the interwar period, rejected the allegation that German science had failed to contribute to the war effort, while insisting that scientists in war service had added to the corpus of international science (gesamte Wissenschaft). See Thielede, Albert, ‘Deutsche Landeskundliche Arbeiten im Weltkriege’ (Inaugural dissertation, University of Jena, 1937)Google Scholar; and Schwarte, Max, Die Technik im Weltkriege, Berlin, 1920Google Scholar and Die militärischen Lehren des groβen Krieges, Berlin, 1920.Google Scholar
9 Compare the analysis offered by Wallace, Stuart, War and the Image of Germany: British Academics, 1917–1918, Edinburgh, 1988.Google Scholar
10 Cross, Whitman, ‘Geology in the World War and after’, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America (1919), 30, 165–76, on 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 For the flavour of the contemporary literature, see MacDonald, William, ‘The intellectual mobilization of France’, The Nation (1917), 104, 425–5Google Scholar. The secondary literature on science at war is now considerable but sketchy, and lacks a comprehensive, international thematic treatment. For technology, see Hartcup, Guy, The War of Invention: Scientific Developments, 1914–18, London, 1988Google Scholar, which, however, makes no mention of the geological war. Studies that form the basis of recent comparative work can be traced from the pioneering work by Schroeder-Gudehus, Brigitte, Deutsche Wissenschaft und Internationale Zusammenarbeit, 1914–1928, Geneva, 1966Google Scholar. For more specialized work, see Kevles, Daniel, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America, New York, 1978Google Scholar, and various studies by MacLeod, Roy and Andrews, E. K., including: ‘The origins of the DSIR: reflections on ideas and men 1915–16’, Public Administration (1970), 48, 23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Scientific advice on the war at sea, 1915–1917: the Board of Invention and Research’, Journal of Contemporary History (1971), 6, 3–40Google Scholar; MacLeod, Roy and MacLeod, E. K., ‘War and economic development: government and the optical industry in Britain, 1914–18’, in War and Economic Development: Essays in Honour of David Joslin (ed. Winter, Jay M.), Cambridge, 1975, 165–204Google Scholar; and ‘The social relations of science and technology, 1914–1939’, in The Fontana Economic History of Europe: Vol. 5: The Twentieth Century, Part I (ed. Cipolla, Carlo), London, 1976, 301–35Google Scholar; and ‘The contradictions of professionalism: scientists, trade unionism and the First World War’, Social Studies of Science (1979), 9, 1–32Google Scholar; MacLeod, Roy, ‘The “Arsenal” in the Strand: Australian chemists and the British munitions effort, 1916–19’, Annals of Science (1989), 46, 45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘The chemists go to war: the mobilisation of civilian chemists and the British war effort, 1914–1918’, Annals of Science (1993), 50, 455–81.Google Scholar
12 At Camberley and Chatham, Lt.-Col. Charles Cooper King is credited with being the first professional soldier to accept the application of geology to military tactics. See also Portlock, Maj.-Gen. J. E. RE, A Rudimentary Treatise on Geology, 5th edn, London, 1868Google Scholar, both cited in Brooks, Alfred, The Use of Geology on the Western Front, US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 128-D, Washington, DC, 1920, 85–124Google Scholar at 88–91.
13 See Steinman, Gustav, ‘Geologie und Kriege’, Geologische Rundschau (1915), 6, 94–5.Google Scholar
14 See Taylor, A. J. P., The First World War, Harmondsworth, 1963, 38.Google Scholar
15 Kranz, Walter, ‘Militärgeologie’, Kriegstechnische Zeitschrift (1913), 10, 464–71Google Scholar. Kranz, 's views were aired publicly in early 1914: see ‘Militärgeologie’, Straβburger Post, 10 02 1914Google Scholar. There is a suggestion that he inspired the Minister of War to propose a geological service for the army in the Reichstag in 1913, but no action was taken before the war. See Rose, Lt.-Col. E. P. F., ‘Geology in war’, The Royal Engineers Journal (1978), 92, 183.Google Scholar
16 The geological significance of the Belgian route was widely appreciated. See, e.g., Johnson, Douglas, ‘Geographic aspects of the war’, Bulletin of the American Geographical Society (1915), 47, 183.Google Scholar
17 Bärtling, Richard, ‘Grundzüge der Kriegsgeologie’, Zeitschrift der deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft (1916), 68, 75Google Scholar. For Bärtling, see Poggendorff, J. C., Biographisch-literarisches Handwörterbuch der exacten Naturwissenschaften, Berlin, 1959, viia, Pt 1, 78.Google Scholar
18 In early 1915, a popular literature emerged in Germany extolling the achievements of geologists in the war. See Koelsch, A., ‘Kriegsgeologie’, Vossische Zeitung, 24 01 1915Google Scholar; Frech, F., ‘Militärgeologie’, Die Naturwissenschaft (1915), 3Google Scholar; Behr, F. M., ‘Geologie und Bergbau im Kriege’, Frankfurter Zeitung, 23 03 1915, 1Google Scholar; van Werveke, L., ‘Militärgeologie im Frieden und im Kriege’, Straβburger Post, 25 03 1915Google Scholar. In February 1915, W. Salomon, who was professor of geology and palaeontology at the University Museum, Heidelberg, delivered a lecture on Kriegsgeologie, organized by the Red Cross, on behalf of the Widows and Children of Fallen Geologists (Heidelberg, 1915), cited in Bärtling, , op. cit. (17), 72Google Scholar. Salomon was a keen advocate of Kranz's cause. See his ‘Kriegsgeologie’, Geologische Rundschau (1915), 6, 315.Google Scholar
19 Kranz continued his campaign through 1915. See ‘Kriegsgeologie’, in Der Geologe, Leipzig, 1915Google Scholar, and ‘Aufgaben der Geologie im Mitteleuropäischen Kriege’, Mitteilungen von Petermann (1915), 61, 249.Google Scholar
20 ‘Hans Philipp (1878–1949)’, in Poggendorff, , op. cit. (17), viia, 561.Google Scholar
21 See Bourdier, Franck, ‘Charles Barrois (1851–1939)’, DSB, 472Google Scholar, which, however, makes no mention of Barrois’ war experiences.
22 See ‘Charles Barrois (1851–1939)’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of America (1941), 145–50Google Scholar; Davis Papers (Houghton Library, Harvard University), bMS Am 1789, fol. 31.
23 Friedrich Carl Albrecht Penck (1858–1945), pre-war Director of the Geographische Institut in the University of Vienna, and sometime visiting professor at Columbia and Yale. Penck was Rektor of the University of Berlin in 1917–18. After the war, he gave currency to the concept of Lebensraum and its associated vocabulary of nationalism. See Poggendorff, , op. cit. (17), viia, 894Google Scholar and Beckinsale, Robert P., ‘Albrecht Penck’, DSB, x, 501–6Google Scholar. Penck's war work is not mentioned in either source. But see National Academy of Sciences Archives (Washington, DC) (hereafter, NAS Archives), Brooks, Alfred, ‘Plans for applying Geology to Military Purposes’, 24 10 1917.Google Scholar
24 Upon which he wrote a vicious anti-British treatise: Penck, F. C. A., Von England festgehalten: Meine Erlebnisse während des Kriegs im Britischen Reich, Stuttgart, 1915Google Scholar. For details, see MacLeod, Roy, ‘Full of honour and gain to science: munitions production, technical intelligence and the wartime career of Sir Douglas Mawson, FRS’, Historical Records of Australian Science (1988), 7, 200Google Scholar, n35. Penck's odyssey is described in his correspondence with Davis, from London. See Davis Papers (Houghton Library), bMS Am 1789, fol. 371, Penck, to Davis, , 11 12 1914Google Scholar. His vitriol spilled into attacks on American physiography, See Davis, to Penck, , 3 04 1921Google Scholar. His son, Walther (1888–1923) also a geologist, who shared his father's scientific nationalism, died shortly after the war. Unlike her brother, Penck's daughter, Use, retained fond memories of her childhood holiday visits to England before the war. See idem, fol. 372, Ilse Penck, to Davis, , 28 11 1920.Google Scholar
25 In particular with Professor Hirschwald, who offered courses in mining engineering at the Technische Hochschule in Kranz, Charlottenburg, op. cit. (15), 468.Google Scholar
26 ‘August Leppla (1859–1924)’, in Poggendorff, , op. cit. (17), vi, 1502.Google Scholar
27 This number was attributed to Barrois, whose lecture rooms the Germans commandeered during the occupation. See Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 96Google Scholar; Brig.-Gen. J. E. Edmonds, commenting on King, W. B. R., ‘Geological work on the Western Front’, The Geographical Journal (1919), 54, 201–23, on 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and David, in a letter to Strahan in 1919 (ibid., 219). I have been unable to find independent German confirmation of these figures.
28 See NAS Archives, MRC: G & G, Army Geological Service, Charles P. Berkey (Columbia University), ‘Geological War Service of the German Army’, 5 04 1918.Google Scholar
29 Cross, , op. cit. (10), 170Google Scholar. A German technical paper intercepted by the Americans in 1917 listed over seventy geologists and mining engineers mobilized for military work. Two corps of geologists were organized, one for the Eastern and one for the Western Front. NAS Archives, Govt AG & Departments: Engineer Corps, British Geology and War. See Brooks, Alfred H., ‘Report on the Geologic Work for the British Army, with some Notes on the Use of Geology by the French and German Armies’, 1 11 1917Google Scholar. This was the second of five reports prepared by Brooks. A post-war calculation by Douglas Johnson suggests that 176 geologists served with the German army. Rose and Rosenbaum, who have studied the period carefully, suggest that as many as 250 German geologists were mobilized during the last year of the war. See Rose, E. P. F. and Rosenbaum, M. S., ‘British military geologists: the formative years to the end of the First World War’, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association (1993), 104, 47.Google Scholar
30 The overall situation is ably surveyed in Offer, Avner's The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation, Oxford, 1989.Google Scholar
31 These were led by Dr Norbert Krebs of the University of Würzburg, Dr Othenio Abel, and Professor Richard Michael of the Prussian Geological Survey. Thielede, , op. cit. (8), 28, 33–4Google Scholar. See also Poggendorff, , op. cit. (17), vi, part 3, 1722.Google Scholar
32 Thielede, , op. cit. (8), 41.Google Scholar
33 Kossmat's expedition included Otto Erdmannsdörffer, professor of mineralogy at Hanover (and later at Heidelberg), and Friedrich Rinne (1863–1933), the 54-year-old professor of mineralogy at Leipzig, and distinguished petrographer. See ‘Mitteilungen über den geologischen Bau von Mittelmazedonien’, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (1918), 70, 246–86Google Scholar. See also Poggendorff, , op. cit. (17), vi, part 2, 1387Google Scholar, part 1, 671 and part 3, 2182–3.
34 Wilser, J., Die Kriegschauplätze, 1914–1918 Geologisch Dargestellt, Berlin, n.d.Google Scholar
35 Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 97.Google Scholar
36 Rose, and Rosenbaum, , op. cit. (29), 46.Google Scholar
37 For the British position, see Work of the Royal Engineers in the European War, 1914–19: Geological Work on the Western Front, Chatham, 1922, ch. 2.Google Scholar
38 See Bärtling, , op. cit. (17), 79.Google Scholar
39 Later a distinguished economic mineralogist, geochemist and scientific adviser to Lenin. See Menialov, A., ‘Aleksandr Evgenievich Fersman (1883–1945)’, DSB, iv, 597–8.Google Scholar
40 Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 92.Google Scholar
41 See NAS Archives, MRC: G & G: Reports: Johnson, Douglas, ‘Report on Geological Work in the Allied and Enemy Armies’, 11 1918, 40–1.Google Scholar
42 De Margerie, famous for his translation of Suess, 's Das Antlitz der Erde (3 vols., Prague, Vienna, Leipzig, 1863–1909)Google Scholar became, after the war, director of the Service Géologique de la Carte d'Alsace et de Lorraine, in Strasbourg. As a young man, invalided by a carriage accident, he did significant geological work for the French army. (See Noë, G. de la and de Margerie, E., ‘Les Forms du terrain’, Service Géographique de l'Armée, Paris, 1888)Google Scholar. His work is described in his autobiography, Critique et géologie, 5 vols., Paris, 1943–1948.Google Scholar
43 Fleure, H. J., ‘Emmanuel Marie Pierre Martin Jacquin de Margerie (1862–1953)’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society (1955), 1, 185–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Neither this, nor his DSB biographer, Tobien, Heinz, ‘E. M. P. M. J. de Margerie’, DSB, ix, 103–4Google Scholar, makes mention of his war work, but his contributions were recognized by the Americans. Cf. Brooks, , op. cit. (23)Google Scholar and in Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 90.Google Scholar
44 See Lévy, Arthur, Les Coulisses de la guerre: La Service Géographique de l'Armée, 1914–1918, Paris, 1926Google Scholar. Robert (Joseph Emile) Bourgeois (1857–1945), educated at the École Polytechnique, was both engineer and geographer. He led topographic expeditions to Madagascar in 1895 and Quito in 1901. He remained professor of astronomy and geodesy (1908–28) when he became director of the Service Géographique de l'Armee in 1911. He was noted for his determination of the new meridian of France and for making gravity measurements in France and Algeria. See Debus, Allen G. (ed.), World Who's Who in Science, Chicago, 1968, 219.Google Scholar
45 Brooks, , op. cit. (23)Google Scholar. See also NAS Archives, Division of Geology and Geography, Reports: Johnson, Douglas to Cross, Whitman, 17 04 1918Google Scholar, and Johnson, Douglas, The Role of Geology in the First World War, New York, 1942, 6.Google Scholar
46 Flett, John, The First Hundred Years of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, London, 1937, 162–7Google Scholar. For the Survey's special war publications – including ‘Sources of Temporary Water supply in the South of England and the Neighbouring Parts of the Continent’– see Bailey, Edward, The Geological Survey in Great Britain, London, 1952, 172–5.Google Scholar
47 These were Cunnington, Cecil Henry (1889–1918)Google Scholar, Pocock, Roy Woodhouse (1887–?)Google Scholar, and Whitehead, Talbot Hays (1890–?)Google Scholar. See Flett, , op. cit. (46), 165Google Scholar. The geologist appointed to the British Army in Palestine was Maj. R. W. Brock, formerly of the Geological Survey of Canada.
48 King, , op. cit. (27), on 201.Google Scholar
49 Strahan, Aubrey, ‘Geological conditions affecting the available sources of water in Belgium and northern France’, paraphrased in ‘Geology at the seat of war’, Geological Magazine (1917), 64, 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 91.Google Scholar
51 Cf. Shotton, F. W., ‘Prof. W. B. R. King, OBE, FRS’, Nature (1963), 196, 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘William Bernard Robinson King’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society (1963), 9, 171–82.Google Scholar
52 The Italian General Staff was advised by Col. Delfino de Ambrosis, professor of geology and later director of the Instituto Geografico Militaire at Florence. Several influential Italian geologists, including Giorgio Dal Piaz, professor at Padua, did fundamental research on Alpine tectonics, while others, including Paolo Vinassa de Regny (later professor at Pavia), and Michele Gortani, of Pisa, served with the Alpine (Alpini) Corps. The names of official Austrian advisers to the Austro-Hungarian Imperial Army, if any, are not known. However, many Austrian geologists, including Kossmat, contributed significantly (and well after the war) to Alpine geological mapping, and their work was well known to their Italian colleagues. See Battista, Giovanni and Piaz, Giorgio Vittorio dal, ‘Sviluppo delle concezioni faldistiche nell'interpretazione tettonica delle Alpi (1840–1940)’, Cento anni di geologia Italiana, Volume Giubilere, 1881–1981, Bologna, 1984, 41–70Google Scholar, especially 55, and Accordi, Bruno, Storia della geologia, Bologna, 1984, 87–9Google Scholar. I am grateful for these references to the kindness of Dr Ezio Vaccari of the University of Genoa.
53 King, W. B. R., ‘The recording of hydrogeological data’, Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society (1951), 28, 112–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cited in Rose, and Rosenbaum, , op. cit. (29), 45.Google Scholar
54 British and American sources mention Charles Barrois of the University of Lille, Léon Bertrand, professor of geology at the Ėcole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures, Paris, and Gen. Greindle, secretary of the Geological Society of Belgium and also chief engineer of the Belgian Army. In September 1918, Greindle appointed Col. P. J. van der Schueren the first specialist geological adviser to the Conseil de Génie of the Belgian Army. See Johnson, , op. cit. (41).Google Scholar
55 Mawson, Douglas, ‘Sir Tannatt William Edgeworrh David’, Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society (1935), 1, 493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vallance, T. G. and Branagan, D. F., ‘Sir Tannatt William Edgeworth David’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, Melbourne, 1981, viii, 218–21.Google Scholar
56 MacLeod, Roy, ‘Phantom soldiers: Australian tunnellers on the Western Front, 1916–19’, Journal of the Australian War Memorial, (10, 1988), No. 13, 31–43Google Scholar; Branagan, David, ‘The Australian Mining Corps in World War I’, Bulletin and Proceedings of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (1987), 292, 40–4.Google Scholar
57 There are many contemporary accounts of the mining war: see, e.g., Trounce, Capt. H. D., RE, Fighting the Boche Underground, New York, 1918Google Scholar, and Hitchcock, Raymond, The Tunnellers, London, 1986Google Scholar. For more recent assessements, see MacLeod, , op. cit. (56)Google Scholar and Branagan, , op. cit. (56)Google Scholar; Rosenbaum, M. S., ‘Geological influence on tunnelling under the Western Front at Vimy Ridge’, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association (1989), 100, 135–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hammond, B., ‘Professionals and specialists: military mining on the Western Front’, Imperial War Museum Review (1991), No. 6, 4–15Google Scholar; and Rawling, William, ‘Tunnellers on the Western Front, 1914–1918’, Canadian Defence Quarterly (1993), 23, 37–42.Google Scholar
58 David to Strahan, cited in King, , op. cit. (27), 219.Google Scholar
59 Fussell, , op. cit. (2), 43–5.Google Scholar
60 King, , op. cit. (27), 204.Google Scholar
61 King, , op. cit. (27), 203.Google Scholar
62 Notably, the Australian Electrical Mechanical Mining and Boring Company, under the command of Captain R. V. Morse, DSO. See MacLeod, , op. cit. (56).Google Scholar
63 Branagan, , op. cit. (56)Google Scholar, cited in Rose, and Rosenbaum, , op. cit. (29), 46.Google Scholar
64 Strahan, , op. cit. (49), 69Google Scholar, quoting Professor Wilhelm Salomon of the Geologische Institut, University of Heidelberg, author of an influential treatise ‘Über im Kriege wichtige Wasserverhältnisse des Bodens und der Gesteine’ (On the Water-bearing Properties of Soils and Rocks important in War), Munich, 1916. A copy of this survives in the David papers in the University Archives of the University of Sydney.
65 Johnson, , op. cit. (45), 9.Google Scholar
66 Ames, Joseph S., ‘Science at che Front’, Atlantic Monthly (1918), 121, 93Google Scholar. Earlier, the work of the British had been popularized in America by Pogue, Joseph F., ‘Military geology’, Science (1917), 46 (NS), 8–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67 For a British perspective at Vimy, see Rosenbaum, , op. cit. (57), 135Google Scholar. For a German perspective, compare the career of Dr Wilfried (Willy) Stackler, sometime employee of the Seismos Geophysical Company in Germany, and post-Second World War pioneer in micro-gravity survey techniques, used to trace gold-bearing lodes in South Australia. Sprigg, R. C., A Geologist Strikes Out: Recollections, 1954–1993, North Flinders Ranges, 1993, 142–3.Google Scholar
68 Vallance, and Branagan, , op. cit. (55), 43Google Scholar, follows Rose, and Rosenbaum, (op. cit. (29), 45)Google Scholar in giving 35000 feet; King, , op. cit. (53), 202Google Scholar, estimates 28000 feet.
69 Rose, and Rosenbaum, , op. cit. (29), 46.Google Scholar
70 For the technical details of this achievement, see Royal Engineers in the European War, op. cit. (37), 29–30Google Scholar, and Brooks, , op. cit. (29).Google Scholar
71 See Edgeworth David Papers (University of Sydney), ‘A German Account of the Loss of Messines Ridge and Adjoining Sectors in June, 1917’. See also Harvey, R. N., ‘Lt.Col. Sir John Norton-Griffiths, Bt’, TOCA Bulletin (1930), No. 5, 12–15Google Scholar. For the perspective of the German geologist serving with the Fourth Army, see Passarge, Siegfried, Aus Achtzig Jahren: Eine Selbstbiographie, Hamburg, 1957, 451–2Google Scholar. See also MacLeod, , op. cit. (56).Google Scholar
72 As recalled by Brig.-Gen. J. E. Edmonds in che discussion of King, , op. cit. (27), 217.Google Scholar
73 Edgeworth David Papers (University of Sydney), Harvey, Brig.-Gen. R. N. to Stevenson, Lt.-Col. A. G., 14 06 1917.Google Scholar
74 Edmonds, , op. cit. (27), 217.Google Scholar
75 King, , op. cit. (27), 202.Google Scholar
76 See Burgess, George, ‘The application of science to warfare in France’, Scientific Monthly (1917), 5, 289–97.Google Scholar
77 Smith, Philip S., ‘The geologist in war times: the United States Geological Survey's war work’, Economic Geology (1918), 13, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78 Edgeworth David Papers (University of Sydney), Brooks, to David, , 3 10 1917.Google Scholar
79 Cross, , op. cit. (10), 179.Google Scholar
80 Brooks, , op. cit. (23).Google Scholar
81 Cross, , op. cit. (10), 178.Google Scholar
82 Johnson, , op. cit. (41).Google Scholar
83 NAS Archives, Covt: AG & Departments: Engineer Corps, British Geology and War: Brooks, Alfred, ‘Notes on British Mining Practice’, 24 11 1917.Google Scholar
84 King, , op. cit. (27), 209.Google Scholar
85 Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 87.Google Scholar
86 Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 85–124.Google Scholar
87 Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 95Google Scholar. See also MacLeod, , ‘The chemists go to war’, op. cit. (11).Google Scholar
88 See Rose, and Rosenbaum, , op. cit. (29).Google Scholar
89 After the war, Oswald, one of Kossmat's assistants, was commissioned by the Greek government to complete what became the first reliable modern map of the Greek area of Macedonia. See Thielede, , op. cit. (8), 38.Google Scholar
90 Fleure, , op. cit. (43), 190.Google Scholar
91 ‘Alfred Hulse Brooks’, Concise Dictionary of Scientific Biography, New York, 1981, 16Google Scholar; ‘Brooks, Alfred H.’, in Debus, , op. cit. (44), 249.Google Scholar
92 Brooks, , op. cit. (12)Google Scholar and Military Mining, Occasional Papers No. 62, US Army Engineering School, Washington, DC, 1920. See also his retrospective views on ‘Military mining in France’, Engineering and Mining Journal (1920), 109, 606–10.Google Scholar
93 Anon., Kriegsgeologie, herausgegeben im Auftrage des Chefs des Generalstabs des Feldheeres durch den Chef des Kriegsvermessungwesens, Brussels, 1918.Google Scholar
94 Royal Engineers in the European War, op. cit. (37).Google Scholar
95 See Sutton, John, ‘Geologists in the Second World War’, New Scientist, 22 06 1978, 831–3Google Scholar; see also Rosenbaum, M. S., ‘Geologists at war: the D-Day operations and subsequent advance’, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association (1990), 101, 163–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Rose, E. P. F. and Rosenbaum, M. S., ‘British military geologists: through the Second World War to the end of the cold war’, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association (1993), 104, 95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Rose, Col. E. P. F. and Hughes, Col. N. F., ‘Sapper geology: Part I: Lessons learnt from World War’, The Royal Engineers Journal (1993), 107, 27–33.Google Scholar
96 Johnson, Douglas, Topography and Strategy in the War, New York, 1917, 1–7.Google Scholar
97 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Archives, Research Information Service, Rome, Knox, S. L. G. to Hale, George Ellery, 18 12 1918.Google Scholar
98 Hale, George Ellery, ‘The purpose of the National Research Council’, in National Research Council Bulletin (1919–1921), 1, 2.Google Scholar
99 See Johnson, Douglas, ‘Contributions of geology’, and ‘Contributions of geography’Google Scholar, in Yerkes, , op. cit. (1), chs. 11 and 12.Google Scholar
100 Cornish, Vaughan, The Strategic Geography of the Great Powers, London, 1918Google Scholar, Brooks, A. H., Battlefields of the Great War, New York, 1921Google Scholar, and Cole, Brig. D. H., Imperial Military Geography, 1924, London, 12th edn, 1956.Google Scholar
101 For wartime rivalries between geologists and engineers, see Johnson, , op. cit. (41), 39Google Scholar. That engineers in after-dinner speeches might playfully correlate Germany's widespread use of geologists with the defeat of the German army, retains an element of this rivalry. See Rose, , op. cit. (15), 183.Google Scholar
102 See Kevles, , op. cit. (11), ch. 9Google Scholar; Haber, Lutz, The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War, Oxford, 1986Google Scholar, and MacLeod, , ‘The chemists go to war’Google Scholar, op. cit. (11).
103 Benda, Julian, Clerks, La Trahison des (1928), translated by Aldington, Richard as The Treason of the Intellectuals, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
104 Johnson, , op. cit. (45).Google Scholar
105 Cross, , op. cit. (10), 166–8.Google Scholar
106 See Gelfand, Lawrence E., The Inquiry: American Preparations for Peace, 1917–1919, New Haven, 1963Google Scholar. Brooks surmised that more German and Allied geologists were engaged in the study of strategic mineral deposits than were employed on military problems (Brooks, , op. cit. (12), 123Google Scholar). For one of his own strategic contributions, see ‘The Lorraine iron field and the war’, Engineering and Mining Journal (1920), 109, 1065–9.Google Scholar
107 See Baker, F. W. G., The International Council of Scientific Unions: A Brief Survey, Paris, 1988.Google Scholar
108 See SirHolland, Thomas, ‘The international relationship of minerals’, Presidential Address, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, South Africa, 1929, 22–37Google Scholar; Leith, C. K. et al. , World Minerals and World Peace, Washington, DC, 1943.Google Scholar
109 Cf. Pogue, Joseph, ‘Mineral resources in war and the bearing on preparedness’, The Scientific Monthly (1917), 5, 120–34.Google Scholar
110 McCormmach, Russell, ‘On academic scientists in Wilhelmian Germany’, Daedalus (1974), 103, 157–71Google Scholar. See also Bessel, Richard, Germany after the First World War, Oxford, 1994.Google Scholar
111 Schroeder-Gudehus, Brigitte, Les Scientifiques et la paix: La communauté scientifique internationale au cours des années 20, Montreal, 1978Google Scholar; Lyons, F. S. L., Internationalism in Europe, 1815–1914, Leiden, 1963Google Scholar; and Crawford, Elisabeth, Shinn, Terry and Sörlin, Sverker (eds.), Denationalizing Science: The Context of International Scientific Practice, Dordrecht, 1992.Google Scholar
112 See Forman, Paul, ‘Scientific internationalism and the Weimar physicists: the ideology and its manipulation in Germany after World War I’, Isis (1973), 64, 151–80Google Scholar. To the best of my knowledge, no comparable study has yet been made of Weimar geologists.
