Saving the Australian War Effort in 1916? The Significance and Impact of Global Climatic Conditions and Pests on William Morris Hughes’ Negotiations with the British Government

Taking up the thesis of Dipesh Chakrabarty (2009) that human history (including cultural history) on the one hand and natural history on the other must be brought into conversation more than has been done so in the past, this presentation will focus more closely on the significance and the impact of global climatic conditions and pests on the negotiations that Australian Prime Minister William Morris Hughes carried on with the British government between March and November 1916. Whereas Australia had been able to sell most of its produce in 1914 and 1915 the situation looked more serious in 1916, not least due to the growing shortage in shipping. It was therefore imperative for the Australian government to find a way to solve this problem, not least because it wanted to keep up its own war effort at the pace it had been going so far. In this context intentions to make or press ahead with a contribution to a war perceived to be more total those of the past interacted with natural phenomena such as the declining harvest in many parts of the world in 1916 as a consequence of climatic conditions as well as pests in many parts of the world.

From the Sea to Paris and back: On the interdependence of economic warfare, weather conditions and the submarine campaign 1916-1917

Starting of from Avner Offer’s comment that the First World War was not only a war of steel and gold, but also of bread and potatoes (1989: 1) and my own research on British as well as Australian preparations for economic warfare and based on sources from the entente as well as the central powers but also from the United States, Canada and Australia, may presentation will focus on the interdependence of the measures taken by entente as well as central power authorities in the second half of 1916. Already a year before both sides had become aware that this war would not only be decided on the battlefield, but that the issues of primary as well as secondary resources would be decisive. Accordingly measures that could strike the enemy in this field were discussed and put into place more and more and this at time, when weather conditions caused a reduction of harvest all over Europe, Northern America and Argentina.

The triplite–triploidite supergroup: structural modulation in wagnerite, discreditation of magniotriplite, and the new mineral hydroxylwagnerite

Electron-microprobe analysis, single-crystal X-ray diffraction with an area detector, and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy show that minerals related to wagnerite, triplite and triploidite, which are monoclinic Mg, Fe and Mn phosphates with the formula Me2+ 2PO4(F,OH), constitute a modulated series based on the average triplite structure. Modulation occurs along b and may be commensurate with (2b periodicity) or incommensurate but generally close to integer values (∼3b, ∼5b, ∼7b, ∼9b), i.e. close to polytypic behaviour. As a result, the Mg- and F-dominant minerals magniotriplite and wagnerite can no longer be considered polymorphs of Mg2PO4F, i.e., there is no basis for recognizing them as distinct species. Given that wagnerite has priority (1821 vs. 1951), the name magniotriplite should be discarded in favour of wagnerite. Hydroxylwagnerite, end-member Mg2PO4OH, occurs in pyrope megablasts along with talc, clinochlore, kyanite, rutile and secondary apatite in two samples from lenses of pyrope–kyanite–phengite–quartz-schist within metagranite in the coesite-bearing ultrahigh-pressure metamorphic unit of the Dora-Maira Massif, western Alps, Vallone di Gilba, Val Varaita, Piemonte, Italy. Electron microprobe analyses of holotype hydroxylwagnerite and of the crystal with the lowest F content gave in wt%: P2O5 44.14, 43.99; SiO2 0.28, 0.02; SO3 –, 0.01; TiO2 0.20, 0.16; Al2O3 0.06, 0.03; MgO 48.82, 49.12; FeO 0.33, 0.48; MnO 0.01, 0.02; CaO 0.12, 0.10; Na2O 0.01, –; F 5.58, 4.67; H2O (calc) 2.94, 3.36; –O = F 2.35, 1.97; Sum 100.14, 99.98, corresponding to (Mg1.954Fe0.007Ca0.003Ti0.004Al0.002Na0.001)Σ=1.971(P1.003Si0.008)Σ=1.011O4(OH0.526F0.474)Σ=1 and (Mg1.971Fe0.011Ca0.003Ti0.003Al0.001)Σ=1.989(P1.002Si0.001)Σ=1.003O4(OH0.603F0.397)Σ=1, respectively. Due to the paucity of material, H2O could not be measured, so OH was calculated from the deficit in F assuming stoichiometry, i.e., by assuming F + OH = 1 per formula unit. Holotype hydroxylwagnerite is optically biaxial (+), α 1.584(1), β 1.586(1), γ 1.587(1) (589 nm); 2V Z(meas.) = 43(2)°; orientation Y = b. Single-crystal X-ray diffraction gives monoclinic symmetry, space group P21/c, a = 9.646(3) Å, b = 12.7314(16) Å, c = 11.980(4) Å, β = 108.38(4) , V = 1396.2(8) Å3, Z = 16, i.e., hydroxylwagnerite is the OH-dominant analogue of wagnerite [β-Mg2PO4(OH)] and a high-pressure polymorph of althausite, holtedahlite, and α- and ε-Mg2PO4(OH). We suggest that the group of minerals related to wagnerite, triplite and triploidite constitutes a triplite–triploidite super-group that can be divided into F-dominant phosphates (triplite group), OH-dominant phosphates (triploidite group), O-dominant phosphates (staněkite group) and an OH-dominant arsenate (sarkinite). The distinction among the three groups and a potential fourth group is based only on chemical features, i.e., occupancy of anion or cation sites. The structures of these minerals are all based on the average triplite structure, with a modulation controlled by the ratio of Mg, Fe2+, Fe3+ and Mn2+ ionic radii to (O,OH,F) ionic radii.