“War and Nature: An Environmental Military History of ”

By:

Ian Graham

The Origins of

In 1941, the war department declared that a specific area in Chambersburg Pennsylvania had been chosen as one of twelve new U.S. ordnance sites to fuel the war effort in Europe. Their primary mission: to receive incoming war supplies, handle the acquisitions organization, and ship these materials consisting of ammunition, trucks, parts, and other supplies to the war front. The residents of Chambersburg did not dispute the war department’s acquisition of nearly 21,000 acres bought from the general public and transformed into a war cache. Letterkenny Army Depot would play a pivotal part in victory for the war effort. However, while Letterkenny of Chambersburg was doing its part for the war, residents did not know that their environment would change forever.

This hardworking military establishment enjoyed a short break following World War II, before a new war was on the horizon; a Cold. Following the election of President Eisenhower, Letterkenny Army Depot had new missions and orders to follow making it a permanent military installation. Its new mission was technology research, weapons housing and deconstruction, and industrial waste disposal. It is during this time that the Chambersburg residents would regret their unyielding acceptance of military operations in their hometown. Letterkenny as well as Tobyhanna army depot in Northeastern Pennsylvania have drastically altered Pennsylvania’s ecosystems and urban environments from 1954 to the present, however, the real changes and significant decisions took place between 1945 and 1968, the most prominent and serious years of the Cold War.

A Tale of Two Depots: Tobyhanna

Tobyhanna Army Depot was probably the most ecologically and urban friendly military base in Pennsylvania before the Cold War. The army arrived in 1912 and declared the site of Tobyhanna a prime spot. The base sits on a 26,000 acre landscape, but the surrounding landscape remained nearly unaffected as the base’s primary function was technological research and manufacturing. The base operated in harmony with the ecological and urban environment of Northeastern Pennsylvania. No surrounding forestry was cut down or cleared to make room for more of the base, and the surrounding terrain “is not to be altered under any circumstance”. Before the final additions of the base were built in the 1950’s, public support of the construction was crucial due to the economically depressed region. During the decline of anthracite coal mining, the base received over 600 applications for employment two years before it was opened. The base not only preserved the environment but also created jobs and brought economic prosperity to Northeastern Pennsylvania. Of course, these were words being spoken in 1956, and the times have changed since then but nevertheless the surrounding ecosystem and urban environment remained nearly unaffected.

Letterkenny

During the arms race between 1958 and 1964, Letterkenny received an average monthly shipment between 100 and 250 drums of nuclear and petrol waste for storage and disposal. It was unclear from 1958‐1964 where in Chambersburg these chemicals were being stored or disposed of. Rocky Spring Lake was the prime suspected area and and in the early 90’s, the EPA proved this to be true. Though the waste was never officially found in Rocky Spring Lake, in 1995 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found small traces of mercury and radiation in the water. The radiation, declared miniscule but large enough to put the base on notice. The commander of the base in 1996 put a fishing ban on the lake until cleaning of the area could be administered. Today, most of the lake remains off limits to the general public.

Tobyhanna’s Downfall

As the Cold War drew on, so did the attack on the environment. Tobyhanna Army Depot began nuclear research and was responsible for maintenance and disposal of nuclear and industrial waste that followed it. Some of the waste made its way down to Letterkenny, but not all. For Tobyhanna to keep up with the demand of disposal, an additional six acres of land were cleared out for the storage of nuclear waste. Later, the army seemed to ignore any warning of the ecological and urban effects these actions might produce. The EPA discovered volatile organic compounds (VOC) and other contaminants in the rivers and streams surrounding the base of Tobyhanna flowing into the highly populated and remote urban areas in the year 2000. Carbon dating traces the cause of these pollutions back to 1962 when Tobyhanna was asked to do missile and explosive computer research as well as industrial and nuclear disposal and storage for the nuclear arms race. In 1963, Tobyhanna cleared out 1,257 additional acres to make room for explosive test sites and training grounds. No actual nuclear tests were done at this site; however, the explosive tests of TNT, Nitro‐glycerin, napalm, and others put the VOC’s in soil and plants which later washed down into the aquatic ecosystem which in turn was distributed to urban societies.

Ian Graham Research Paper Capstone 4/10/09

The relationship between war and the environment is a very rarely discussed topic in both the environmentalist field and the historical field. Some, however, were motivated enough to do substantial research and make excellent unique arguments that are similar to each other and yet quite different as well. Authors Richard P. Tucker, Edmund Russell, Barry Weisberg, Nancy Lee

Peluso, and Michael Watts offer each of their own insights to the correlation between the military and the environment. Three prominent schools of thought emerged from the works of these authors. The first school of thought is that there is a natural balance between war and nature in that nature has an advantage as well as an obstacle to overcome. This is a good way to view war and nature, at least in the pre-technological history of it. The draw back of this school of thought is that it only applies to war long before the First World War and is not analogous of any wars after that.

A second school suggests that nature is the absolute target of attack by the military and no natural balance exists. This concept is a good way to view wars during and following World

War I. It is especially useful school of thought should one research war’s effects on the environment during the Vietnam War. The only draw back is that it doesn’t apply to all wars during that time period or even after. Should an environmental historian make an attempt to apply this school of thought to any war for environmental history research, it would be subject to a lot of criticism and debate and no real argument would be made solid. The final school of thought suggests that nature is the cause of violence and not merely a bystander in war’s way.

This is a very broad and deep argument. Some could apply this school of thought to nearly any

1

time period and military incident throughout the course of history. However, the application of this argument is always speculative and not based on any real solid fact or evidence.

There is of course another method to approach these schools of thought. Not many would think that one could apply multiple arguments to one specific area and time period. Letterkenny

Army Depot and Tobyhanna Army Depot, throughout each of their own personal histories, encompassed the three schools of thought mentioned above along a very specific time line.

Beginning with a “natural enemy, natural ally” relationship and ending with the military’s attack of nature to force nature into a means to serve their own ends. The Cold War forced these bases into an ecological shift spanning from the years between 1945 and 1968, probably the most prominent and heated years of the Cold War. Additionally, as one will notice, the combination of the three schools of thought into one specific area and time period can be viewed as speculative but in this particular case is based on solid fact and evidence.

Authors Richard P. Tucker and Edmund Russell in their book Natural Enemy, Natural

Ally , discuss an often overlooked subject in history concerning war and its relation to the environment. The essays in their edited volume explore a variety of topics such as; the ways in which landscape can influence military strategies, the impact of war and peace on timber resources, and the spread of pests and disease in wartime. Richard P. Tucker an adjunct professor of natural resources and environment at the University of Michigan along with Edmund Russell, an associate professor of culture and history at the University of Virginia span their discussions of war and nature chronologically beginning with pre-colonial America and ending with a brief overview on the Persian Gulf. The book contains several arguments rather than a single argument. First, the essays consistently argue that war is a major force in environmental change and that the environment shapes warfare. Secondly, this edited volume examines current

2

developments and popularity of the war and environment correlated topic in the academic field.

Finally, Russell and Tucker attempted to compile this book as an encouraging motive for further future research.

The two scholars argue just how the environment can be both an enemy and an ally.

“Natural ally” emphasizes that nature has long been an ally of peoples at war, providing the raw materials for food, clothing, and shelter that underpin military success. 1 “Natural enemy” is obviously defined as quite the opposite. It describes the negative aspects of nature on the military such as pests, diseases, poor landscape, and insufficient water supply turning the environment into a “new enemy to combat.”2 Should one doubt these definitions, consider an excellent example as quoted by William Greeley, one of the foremost foresters in the United States during

World War II. “WWII was a lumberman’s carnival. There was a strong market for every species and grade of wood in our forests.”3 Now consider Russell and Tucker’s definition of “natural enemy.” Though there are several great examples they give of “natural enemy”, only one will be sufficient to support their argument. Russell and Tucker offer personal insights when discussing colonial warfare in the American colonies, particularly the American Revolution, Russell and

Tucker point to the technology and strategies of the time. “The technology and strategy of warfare emphasized large, open field battles where neither side could launch a ‘screened attack’.”4 They argue that the “gentleman warfare” of the time called for open fields with an extreme lack of forest foliage. Also, the technology of the time period lacked the capabilities, man power, and time to clear entire areas of forestry in preparation for battle. Nature’s natural open fields containing scattered hills were an ally to colonial armies. Also, dense forests and

1 Richard P. Tucker and Edmund Russell eds., Natural Enemy, Natural Ally: Toward an Environmental History of War (Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2004), 6-7. 2 Ibid., 8. 3 Ibid., 126. 4 Ibid., 70. 3

marsh lands were obstacles sometimes impossible to overcome, hence “natural enemy.” In short,

Russell and Tucker embraced the school of thought which argues that there is a natural balance between war and nature in that nature has an advantage as well as an obstacle to overcome.

Mark Twain once said “it is easier to stay out than to get out.” This quote gives author

Barry Weisberg his motivation for discussing ecocide in his book Ecocide in Indochina .

Weisberg uses a much different argument when compared to that of Russell and Tucker. Russell and Tucker believed that there is some natural balance between war and the environment.

Weisberg takes a much more radical view of the relationship between war and the environment.

He focuses primarily on the U.S.’s effects on Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War and claims that nearly all wars throughout history have been ecologically supplied and motivated. This belief led him to coin the term “ecocide” which he defines as the premeditated assault of a nation and its resources against the cultural and biological fabric of another country and its environments. 5

His central argument is that military operations have no stronger destiny over the order of the natural world. Ecological warfare becomes global survival issues. Taking a step back and referring to Weisberg’s argument that nearly all wars throughout history have been ecologically supplied and motivated means that the by examining wars effects on the environment reveals that the essential military strategy in foreign warfare is attacking the target nation’s resources.

In Vietnam, Agent Orange was used to destroy vegetation in order to deplete the enemy’s use of the jungle as natural cover. Russell and Tucker would refer to this as a natural ally but

Weisberg believes it’s a natural environmental target.6 In addition to Agent Orange; crops were burned, rubber tree plants harvested in mass quantity, streams and rivers damned, mosquitoes

5 Barry Weisberg, Ecocide in Indo China (San Francisco: Canfield Press, 1992), 4. 6 Ibid., 55-63. 4

and other pests eliminated to prevent spread of disease to soldiers, etc. Again, natural enemies to

Russell and Tucker, but viewed as natural targets to Weisberg.

The U.S. had no familiar culture or language to deal with such a thick jungle. Rather than adapt, environmental warfare overtook the land, eradicating its life. Consider the difference between natural enemies and natural targets. A natural enemy is operated through and around with minimal interference to the natural order. Though some damage is done, and this depends on the technology of the civilization, it is not the basis for the war. A natural target, as explained by Weisberg, is the overall strategy, a “new generational strategy of winning by attrition. Only today it is the absolute destruction of nature, not the absolute destruction of soldiers”. 7

Some might say that Weisberg has a one dimensional view of war and its relationship with the environment, but perhaps he is right in that this is how wars have been won for the last several decades. However, Weisberg is only embracing the second argument of the war and nature relationship mentioned earlier. That argument states that nature is the absolute target of attack by the military and no natural balance exists.

Before Edmund Russell took on the collaborative effort with Richard Tucker in editing

Natural Enemy, Natural Ally , he composed his own book called War and Nature . War and

Nature examines the correlation in fighting humans and insects with chemicals from World War

I. He makes an effort to rethink the relationship between war, nature, and human history.

According to Russell, military strategist Karl von Clausewitz defined war as a “form of human intercourse” and virtually ignored nature. 8 Russell’s argument is that war and control of nature coevolved: the control of nature expanded the scale of war, and war expanded the scale on which

7Barry Weisberg, Ecocide in Indochina, 92. 8 Edmund Russell, War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 30. 5

people controlled nature. The control of nature formed one root of total war, and total war helped expand the control of nature to the scale ruled by modern environmentalists. 9

While we see this same theme in Natural Enemy, Natural Ally in that there is a natural balance in the correlation between war and nature, here in the earlier book, Russell has a more specific intention in that war and control of nature coevolved. This is an excellent argument to support his later works on war and nature. As technology grew through the industrial revolution and mass production began to overtake the world, wars became more ecologically based, similar to the ecocide argument. “The United States had the chance to turn an enemy into an ally…wars are not now fought by armies but by nations…resources have become the target of attack”. 10

Barry Weisberg would agree with this argument made by Russell.

Weisberg would certainly agree that environment is now the target of attack rather than an innocent bystander in the way of the war machine. Nations now fight each other over control of natural resources. Whoever gains first superior control over a nation’s resources is the one who will win that war. That was the basis for Weisberg and that is the agreement with Russell. In short, Russell, at the time before Natural Enemy, Natural Ally, believed in the first school of thought about the natural balance between war and nature. The only difference is that in his earlier book, this argument is slightly modified. There is still a natural balance between the two and any difference or dominant form that war and nature might have taken is the result of a co- evolution between the two and therefore remains balanced and natural.

Nancy Lee Peluso and Michael Watts edited the book Violent Environments in which they outline the claim that environmental problems and processes produce violence. Their book profoundly refutes claim made by Edmund Russell and Richard P. Tucker that the relationship

9 Edmund Russell, War and Nautre, 4. 10 Ibid., 117. 6

between war and the environment is a natural process with natural balances. The two claimed that both war and the environment were products of each other, operating in correspondence as they needed to in order to necessitate societies and cultures involved as well as their statuses in the technological or economic world. However, Peluso and Watts claim that environmental historians need to recognize that a “relationship between war and environment must seriously address the causal powers inherent in Nature itself, and not focus solely on overwhelming forces unleashed by capital, state, or technology on the environment”. 11

In order to substantiate their arguments on this, Peluso and Watts use “political” ecology to deepen and broaden the analysis of the theoretic and empirical relationships between violence and the environment. They have chosen to focus on four dimensions as the basis for their argument; environmental degradation associated with nonrenewable resource extraction, environmental change associated with the human transformation of renewable resources, environmental enclosure associated with living space and territory and finally forms of environmental rehabilitation, conservation, and preservation. 12

Peluso and Watts offer strong evidence to support their argument that environmental resources and conditions spark the wars and drive them further and further along rather than environmental problems simply being a product of war as Russell, Tucker, and Weisberg might argue. This argument is the final school of thought mentioned earlier in that nature causes violence and is not merely a bystander in war’s way. We see it today in the U.S. and Iraq war in which some might view the involvement as “blood for oil” as some anti-war propaganda might claim. It offers an excellent counter argument to the field of research when one wishes to study

11 Nancy Lee Peluso and Michael Watts, Violent Environments (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 25. 12 Ibid., 27. 7

the relationship between war and the environment. So far there seems to be many schools of thought and each contains their own unique strengths and weaknesses.

In conclusion, war and nature without a doubt have a strong connection with each other.

Historians and environmental researchers differ as to what that connection is. Some, like Russell and Tucker, argue that there is a balanced co-existence between war and nature whose lines have become less clear as society and technology evolved past World War II. Environmental historians such as Barry Weisberg argue that no balance between war and nature exists. Nature has and always has been, since the end of the Civil War, a natural target crucial to military conquest. It is no longer army against army but nation against nation in a battle for control of natural resources.

Before Edmund Russell partnered up with Richard Tucker taking a passive stance on the symbiotic balance of the military and nature, Russell had a much more distanced view. Russell was arguing that there were natural allies in nature but that time has long since passed. Russell argues that nature has provided no ally to war or any military since WWI. He has since agreed with Barry Weisberg that nature has become a natural target. Russell, Tucker, and Weisberg have both their similarities to one another and their differences.

However, every argument needs its counter argument, this is where Nancy Peluso and

Michael Watts join the discussion arguing that both war and the environment were products of each other, operating in correspondence as they needed to in order to necessitate societies and cultures involved as well as their status in both/either the technological or economic world.

There is no natural balance, there is no co-evolution, and most importantly nature is certainly not our ally in times of war. Nature is an enemy because we treat it as such. Politics of the world have turned nature into a war for resources as a means for domination over other nations.

8

For those who have dedicated their academic careers researching such a rare field of study, one can be very excited to see here that many are developing unique arguments, satisfying the hopes of Russell and Tucker that there will be more future research done. Whatever further research will show on war and its effects on nature throughout human history, one thing is certain according to all five of the authors mentioned above, it is time for the academic society to listen before its too late and wars not only destroy each other, but destroy the one thing that will keep the rest of us alive.

In 1942, residents of Chambersburg Pennsylvania would walk outside early one morning and embrace a new found sense of patriotism subsequent to the one following the attack on Pearl

Harbor. The nation was in full military upheaval; factories coming back to life building , making uniforms, forging bullets, the draft was instituted, and the public was encouraged to buy war bonds, to just name a few. In 1941, the war department declared that a specific chosen area in Chambersburg Pennsylvania will be one of twelve new U.S. ordnance sites to fuel the war effort in Europe. Their primary mission will be to receive incoming war supplies, handle the acquisitions organization, and to ship these materials consisting of ammunition, trucks, parts, and other supplies to the war front. The residents of Chambersburg had no problem with the war department’s acquisition of nearly 21,000 acres of land to be torn up, bought off from the general public, and transformed into a war cache 13 . Letterkenny army depot would play a pivotal part in victory for the war effort. Of course Letterkenny is one of two significant Pennsylvania military instillations, aside from Carlisle Army barracks. However, while Letterkenny of Chambersburg was doing its part for the war effort, residents did not know that their environment would change

13 Letterkenny Army Depot, A History of Letterkenny Army Depot , 2002, http://www.lead.army.mil (March 2009). 9

forever and in many negative ways following WWII 14 . It is also important to note that during this time period, there was a sense of the “suburban ideal” in which air and water pollution took away from the middle-class’s quality of residential life. It was this “suburban ideal” that encompassed the early environmental movements. However, this was not the public outcry in Pennsylvania due to a stronger “patriotic ideal” surrounding the Cold War era.

As World War II drew to a close and European reconstruction began, Letterkenny would play no heroic part in the post WWII era. It would be the coal miners, loggers, masons, steel workers, oil drillers and other natural resource workers who would contribute to the large economic boom the U.S. underwent as it became a prominent producer nation like it was during the colonial era surrounding the time period of the French and Indian war and even the American

Revolution. This would only be a short break for the hardworking military establishment in

Chambersburg. A new war was on the horizon, a Cold War dominated by an arm’s race between the U.S. and USSR. Following the election of President Eisenhower, Letterkenny had new missions and orders to follow through with making it a permanent military installation. Its new mission was technology research, weapons housing and deconstruction, and industrial waste disposal. It is during this time that the Chambersburg residents would regret their unyielding acceptance of military operations in their hometown. Letterkenny as well as Tobyhanna army depot in northeastern Pennsylvania have drastically altered Pennsylvania’s ecosystems and urban environments from 1954 to the present, however, the real changes and significant decisions took place between 1945 and 1968, the most prominent and serious years of the Cold War.

There are three schools of thought when considering the military and the environment.

Environmental historians Richard P. Tucker and Edmund Russell argue that there is a natural

14 I would like to thank graduate student Nathan Fuller of Virginia Tech University for his contributions of expertise in environmental ecology and environmental interpretations found throughout this paper. 10

balance between war and nature. Author Barry Weisberg in his book Ecocide in Indochina argues that nature is the absolute target of attack by the military and no natural balance exists.

Finally, Authors Michael Watts and Nancy Peluso in their book Violent Environments argue that nature is merely a bystander in war’s way and not merely a target of attack or an ally for the war effort. In short, the military bases of Letterkenny and Tobyhanna army depots, significantly changed the ecological and urban environments of Pennsylvania and entail all three schools of thought showing gradual transitions from one to another between the time periods of 1945-1967.

Tobyhanna Army Depot is probably a beacon for all Pennsylvania military bases in the sense that it is probably the most ecologically and urban friendly. Although this would only last for a short time. The army arrived in 1912 and declared the site of Tobyhanna a prime spot. The base sits on a 26,000 acre landscape and even though that is quite a bit of land, the surrounding landscape remained nearly unaffected as the base’s primary function is technological research and manufacturing 15 . The base operated and continues to operate in harmony with the ecological and urban environment. No surrounding forestry has been cut down or cleared to make room for more of the base and the surrounding terrain “is not to be altered under any circumstance” as this would have negative civilian reactions and public support for employment would drop 16 . Also, before the final additions of the base were built in the 1950’s, public support of the construction was crucial because of the economically depressed region it was located in. During the decline of anthracite coal mining, the base received over 600 applications for employment two years before it was opened. The base not only preserved the environment but also created jobs and brought

15 Tobyhanna Army Depot, History of the Tobyhanna Army Depot, 2008, http://www.tobyhanna.army.mil/about/tobyhanna/history.html (March 2009). 16 Adjutant’s General’s Office, “Directory and Station List of the , 1950-1957,” Library Collection, Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, Vol. I, 127. 11

economic prosperity to Northeastern Pennsylvania 17 . Of course, these were words being spoken in 1956 and the times may have changed since then but nevertheless the surrounding ecosystem and urban environment remains nearly unaffected, at least in any significantly negative way. If one was to look at an aerial view of this base, one would see a large military complex surrounded by miles and miles of forestry thick and prosperous with trees and clean free running water. We can see from this example that there is a natural balance between war and nature, at least in the very beginnings of the Cold War.

During the arms race between 1958 and 1964, Letterkenny was receiving an average monthly shipment between 100 and 250 drums of nuclear and petrol waste for storage, and when possible, disposal 18 . It was unclear from 1958-1964 where exactly in the area of Chambersburg these chemicals were being stored or disposed of. Rocky Spring Lake was the prime suspected area and all logical reasoning lead to that area and in the early 90’s during the downfall of the

Soviet Union, the EPA proved this to be true. Though the waste was never officially found in

Rocky Spring Lake, in 1995 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found small traces of mercury and radiation in the water. The radiation, declared miniscule but large enough to put the base on notice was measured at 23-25 mrem 19 . The surrounding civilian community enjoys fishing in the lake and naturally the fish will be contaminated as well as the water. Simple thorough cooking of the fish does not eliminate the threat of mercury or radiation so the commander of the base in 1996 put a fishing ban on the lake until cleaning of the area could be administered. Today, most of the lake remains off limits to the general public. In this instance,

17 Tobyhanna Army Depot, History of Tobyhanna Army Depot, 2008, http://www.tobyhanna.army.mil/about/tobyhanna/history.html (March 2009). 18 Headquarters, Department of the Army, “FM 38-23: Logistics Management Supply Operations,” Military Publications Collection, Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 1952-1964, Vol. III, 46. 19 Environmental Protection Agency, Letterkenny Army Depot: Property Disposal Office, 1995, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/PA2210090054.htm (March 2009). 12

there is no natural balance, it is not the target of attack, but instead nature is a bystander in war’s way. The ecosystem of the area happened to be an area not in use by the military even though they owned it and therefore the terrain acted as a storage ground for the disposal of dangerous material causing a slight inconvenience to the surrounding civilian community. Peluso and Watts would argue that in this instance, nature is merely a bystander in war’s way and the damage done to it and the surrounding urban environment is unintentional.

However, as the Cold War drew on so did the attack on the environment. Tobyhanna army depot began nuclear research and naturally was responsible for the maintaining and disposal of the nuclear and industrial waste that followed it. Some of the waste made its way down to Letterkenny, but not all of it. In order for Tobyhanna to keep up with the demand of disposal, an additional six acres of land were cleared out for the storage of nuclear waste 20 . Later, the army seemed to ignore any warning of the ecological and urban effects these actions might produce. Going back to the radiation discovered in Rocky Spring Lake by Letterkenny, the EPA discovered volatile organic compounds (VOC) and other contaminants in the rivers and streams surrounding the base of Tobyhanna flowing into the highly populated and remote urban areas in

2000. Carbon dating traces the cause of these pollutions back to 1962 when Tobyhanna was asked to do missile and explosive computer research as well as industrial and nuclear disposal and storage for the nuclear arms race 21 . In 1963, Tobyhanna cleared out 1,257 additional acres to make room for explosive test sites and training grounds 22 . Of course, no nuclear tests were done at this site, however, the explosive tests of TNT, Nitro-glycerin, napalm, and others put the

20 Headquarters, Department of the Army, “FM 10-60: Supply of Subsistence in a Theatre of Operations”, Authority Documents, Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 1960-2000, 121-33. 21 Environmental Protection Agency, Tobyhanna Army Depot Site Investigation of Pollutants, March 19 th 2009, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/PA5213820892.htm (March 2009). 22 Adjutant’s General’s Office, “Directory and Station List of the United States Army, 1960-2000,” Library Collection, Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 34.

13

VOC’s in soil and plants which later washed down into the aquatic ecosystem which in turn was distributed to urban societies. Nature is being viewed as an obstacle in the military’s way. If not being viewed as an obstacle, it is certainly not being viewed something to preserve or even possible consider. Therefore, the relationship between war and nature has gone from both a natural balance and innocent bystander, to a target of attack as author Barry Weisberg has argued repeatedly.

In conclusion, authors Richard Tucker, Nancy Peluso, Michael Watts, Edmund Russell, and Barry Weisberg outlined their arguments towards war’s relationship with nature and how society can view it throughout history as well as in contemporary times. The “natural enemy, natural ally” side of the argument portrays war and nature as a friendship in harmed and un- benefited by each other. The argument that nature is the target of attack seems more plausible should one study war and nature following WWI. However, it confines the research to a specific time period and sometimes a specific location constraining the researcher’s attempt to explore a broader theme. The final school of thought suggests that nature is the cause of violence and not merely a bystander in war’s way. This is a completely “blameless” form of argument suggesting that nature encourages violence and that the military is simply working with what they have.

Unfortunately, the basis for this argument is yet confined in an advanced technologically developed world. And yet, not all areas of the world are technologically developed and therefore the researcher finds him/herself confined to a specific time and place and unable to scope out the broader histories of the world. Only by embracing multiple schools of thought can one find the true origins of war in environmental history.

Finally, when looking at the military’s effects on Pennsylvania during the Cold War, no specific school of thought that was mentioned earlier was prominent and consistent throughout

14

the years. Again, by combining the three arguments can one see the ecological shift taking place throughout the areas history and correlate it with the broader histories of the world. Starting with

Tobyhanna Army Depot, it all began as a natural balance, simple area of forestry cleared to make room for a simple small installation. Later, Letterkenny is installed and subsequently given the purposes of nuclear and industrial waste disposal as well as special weapons testing making nature a bystander in war’s way. Finally, Tobyhanna and Letterkenny operated together and made nature the target of attack to fit their own needs for waste disposal and advancement of weaponry and supply. In short, it was the Cold War that initiated the transitional phases of war and nature for Pennsylvania. From the onset around 1945 and its slight downfall to a not so serious environmental setting in 1968, the military drastically altered the ecological and urban environments of Pennsylvania. The effects and procedures changing these environments went nearly unnoticed because of the Cold War. No one dared ask questions so long as the “red threat” was kept at bay. Only after the USSR broke up in 1991 did researchers, historians, environmentalists, and the EPA begin to examine what had already happened to the world if not nuclear holocaust. What they found was a drastically altered ecological and urban environment that is still in the process of being cleansed and fixed.

15

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

Peluso, Nancy Lee and Michael Watts. Violent Environments . Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.

- Watts and Peluso discuss the school of thought which suggests that nature is the root cause of all violence. The two discuss African and Middle Eastern wars as well other various nations in which nature is the cause of violence and not merely a bystander in war’s way. This book helps to bring the discussion into one of the schools of thought found in the research.

Russell, Tucker P. and Edmund Russell. Natural Enemy, Natural Ally: Toward and Environmental History of War . Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2004.

- Tucker and Russell focus more narrowly on a specific place. They discuss the American Revolution and WWI and briefly WWII. They embrace the school of thought that war and nature have a natural balance with each other. This book discusses a school of thought that contributes to the overall argument found within the case study.

Russell, Edmund. War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

- Before Russell edited the book Natural Enemy, Natural Ally Russell expressed the same views in this previously authored book. However, he deviates slightly from Tucker and argues that the balance between war and nature is becoming very much unbalanced. There are more natural enemies than allies. This book offers a counter argument to the paper and helps to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of each school of thought.

Weisberg, Barry. Ecocide in Indochina. San Francisco: Canfield Press, 1992.

- Weisberg embraces the final school of thought in which nature is the absolute target of attack by the military. Victory in war can only be achieved through the absolute domination of the target country’s ecological resources. It addresses yet another school of thought crucial to the overall argument. Also, he mainly discusses the Vietnam War which will help my paper focus not only on a specific place but transition into a specific time period for the case study, mainly the Cold War.

Primary Sources

Adjutant’s General’s Office, “Directory and Station List of the United States Army, Library Collection, Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 1950-1957.

16

- This particular source shows the military’s feelings towards altering the ecological and urban landscape and their reluctance to dominate more of nature than what is needed. A first hand view of “natural enemy, natural ally”.

Adjutant’s General’s Office, “Directory and Station List of the United States Army”, Library Collection, Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 1960-2000.

- This particular source shows a few examples of what war has claimed from nature and how the shift from “natural balance” has been shifted to “target of attack”.

Environmental Protection Agency, Letterkenny Army Depot: Property Disposal Office, 1995, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/PA2210090054.htm (March 2009).

- The EPA has excellent online articles that show first hand and further explain war’s impact on the Pennsylvania ecosystem, particularly during the time period discussed throughout this paper. This particular article shows the investigation in Letterkenny following the Cold War and the discovery of the negative effects it has had on the environment over the last 60 years.

Environmental Protection Agency, Tobyhanna Army Depot Site Investigation of Pollutants, March 19 th 2009, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/PA5213820892.htm (March 2009).

- This particular EPA article shows that which the previous has shown about Letterkenny. Though in this particular instance, the ecological effects are not as nearly as severe or significant as that of Letterkenny. However, Tobyhanna certainly did enough damage to the environment to warrant an investigation following the Cold War.

Headquarters, Department of the Army, “FM 38-23: Logistics Management Supply Operations,” Military Publications Collection, Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 1954- 1968.

- This 313 page document contains a few pages of receipts showing shipments being received by Letterkenny. These shipments included storage for nuclear and industrial waste. Certainly worth mentioning when discussing the Letterkenny’s effects on the urban and ecological environments.

Headquarters, Department of the Army, “FM 10-60: Supply of Subsistence in a Theatre of Operations”, Authority Documents, Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 1960- 2000.

- When Tobyhanna could no longer continue to ship its waste to Letterkenny and other areas for disposal and storage, it had to make provisions to carry out the operations itself. These documents contain order forms for storage and disposal areas in the surrounding areas.

17

Letterkenny Army Depot, A History of Letterkenny Army Depot , 2002, http://www.lead.army.mil (March 2009).

- A simple brief history of the military base was required in order to establish a time line and purpose for the location and how it fits into the argument of the paper.

Tobyhanna Army Depot, History of the Tobyhanna Army Depot, 2008, http://www.tobyhanna.army.mil/about/tobyhanna/history.html (March 2009).

- Again, a brief history of the military base was required in order to establish a time line and purpose for the location and how it fits into the argument of the paper.

18

Ian Graham Historiographical Essay Comparative Seminar Dr. Dietrich Ward 4/28/09

Most students, when writing a paper, simply retell a story and cite common knowledge material. This is not the case for historians. Historians carry the burden of telling part of a story not yet told. Though the broader theme of the story may be familiar, the plot and twist at the end is something that has not yet been heard. In that sense, the “plot” and “twist” has to be supported with evidence. Historians can not simply just make a claim and declare it sufficient enough. No, rather they must draw upon primary source documents to support every claim they make about the story and these documents must also be relevant to the plot. As I started my college career I had no knowledge of what primary and secondary sources were. I was not even able to give an educated guess as to their definition.

Secondary sources are works published by scholars discussing a similar topic relevant to your own. Primary sources are documents written, published, orally spoken, or even photographed that takes place during the exact time, place, and event you are discussing. With this in mind, it is upon these two types of sources that historians write their “story” and make their argument, whatever that argument may be. However, as the historian becomes more educated and experienced, primary and secondary sources are only the foundations of the structure of any historical academic paper. Any good research paper will start with an introduction/vignette, followed by a historiography, finished with a case study, and finalized with a conclusion restating the argument and briefly restating the evidence to support it. These are the skills I have acquired, but they have not always been this way. I was once one of those students simply retelling a story as I will do now. Jerry Bentley states that “World History is essential as the center piece that enables human beings to understand themselves and their place in the world”1 He then goes on to say that neither U.S. history nor the history of any other of the world has precedence over the other, meaning that there is no “special” type of history to tell. Nothing is truer than the words of Jerry

Bentley. It is because no particular history is more special than the other that some historians dedicate themselves to environmental, urban, world, U.S., African, or Asian history, to name only a few. Personally, I was interested in the American West. However, it would be a few years until I’d be able to examine that particular part of history more closely.

My first “research” paper came in a World History I course when I examined the Trojan

War. Looking back on this ten page paper, I couldn’t help but to marvel at the poorly structured, biased, unsubstantiated work that I had submitted. In short, the paper simply retold the entire story of the Trojan War. The paper contained nothing that couldn’t already be found on

Wikipedia or any other internet site that results from a Google search of “The Trojan War”.

However, the paper could pass for “good work” since the criteria for the paper wasn’t too demanding in terms of the sources that were allowed to be used. Had the criteria demanded secondary sources and at least one primary, simple compared to the work I’ve done thus far, I would have gave a confused blank stare at my professor having no reliable concept as to the direction I would guide myself in completing the paper 2.

By the time I came into my theories and practice course in Shippensburg University lead by the then Chair of the History Department Dr. Godshalk, I came to know of the use of secondary and primary sources. It was also in this course that I found my chance to examine the

1 Jerry Bentley, Why Study World History? , http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/5.1/bentley.html (April, 2009), 1. 2 Ian Graham, The Trojan War, World History I, Harrisburg Area Community College: Gettysburg Campus, Spring 2004. history of the American West. I wrote a 10-12 paged secondary source driven paper titled Law in the Idaho and Dakota Territories: 1865-1874. This paper contained only two primary sources that were vague and nearly irrelevant. The secondary sources found throughout the paper were barely relevant to the argument being made, if an argument was made at all. One such secondary source that was hardly relevant but passable for this particular course level was by Bill O’Neil titled The Wild West. Only a few chapters were dedicated to law in the American West and only a few pages discussing law in Idaho and Dakota territories. The primary sources used were just a few newspaper clippings found in microfiche with only a few stories to tell building upon the broader theme of the paper. Stories of vigilante justice, robberies conducted, and only a few names of actual people brought to justice. More importantly however, the structure of the paper contained no solid introduction/vignette, no historiography, no case study, and the transitions were vague at best 3.

A year and a half later, I would be trained in the true historical research field when I took a course in American Economic History with Dr. Allen Dietrich-Ward. The primary goal of the course was to write a primary source driven research paper that relates to the broader theme of course, economic history. My topic that was chosen was labor unions in the Anthracite Coal region of Pennsylvania during the turn of the century. The paper began with an introduction/vignette in the Monongah coal mining area of West Virginia. The paper then followed up with a historiography based on four books. The most notable of which was Davitt

McAteer Monongah: The Tragic Story of the Worst Industrial Accident in US History. The argument of the paper was that it was no one entities fault but rather a joint effort of both

3 Ian Graham, Incorporation of Law in the Idaho and Dakota Territories: 1865-1874, Theory and Practice, Shippensburg University, Spring 2006. company and union being at fault for the dysfunctional relationship 4. The research required an effort to span beyond the confines of the Shippensburg campus. Therefore, I spent a total of ten hours in the special collections archive of Indiana University rifling through box after box of old labor union letters and other sorts of documents. Ten hours of work in this archive resulted in only eight or nine primary source documents all of which produced about five to six pages contributing to the overall paper. It was then that I realized that this is what historians do and this is what it would be like should one choose to pursue a historical career. I could only imagine the time and effort it took for authors like Davit McAteer, William Cronon, Edmund Russell, and

David Blackbourn to write 600 page books dedicated to a very specific historical focus.

In conclusion, my progression as a historian has progressed rapidly over the last four to five years. From beginning, I was incapable of comprehending the uses of primary and secondary sources let alone the use of a historiography and case study to build a well structured qualitative and quantitative research paper. In short, I’ve gone from retelling a story heard by many to making a strong argument on a topic that maybe studied by many but from an approach and from an argumentative stance that is new to many scholars. Simply put, the work I’ve completed in American Economic History and Comparative Seminar allows for even the most knowledgeable of scholars to read my research and possibly contribute to a new understanding of their historical background knowledge.

4 Ian Graham, Labor Unions in the Anthracite Coal Region, American Economic History, Shippensburg University, Fall 2008. Bibliography

Bentley, Jerry. Why Study World History? , http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/5.1/bentley.html (April, 2009).

Graham Ian. The Trojan War, World History I, Harrisburg Area Community College: Gettysburg Campus, Spring 2004.

Graham Ian. Incorporation of Law in the Idaho and Dakota Territories: 1865-1874, Theory and Practice, Shippensburg University, Spring 2006.

Graham, Ian. Labor Unions in the Anthracite Coal Region, American Economic History, Shippensburg University, Fall 2008.