The Developing Science Policy in Occupied and Liberated Europe conference, held in the Austrian Academy of Sciences in May, brought together researchers from across various European Academies from eleven countries under the framework of the European Academies Initiative which is based in the Leopoldina. This conference also saw the launch of the European Academies Research Initiative website following introductory remarks by Rainer Godel explaining the origin of the initiative in exploring how academies react and relate to politics. The cooperating partners for this conference were The European Academies Research Initiative includes the Académie des sciences (Paris), the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Rome), the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the Czech Academy of Sciences (Prague), the Leopoldina. National Academy of Sciences (Halle), the Royal Society (London), the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (Stockholm). This conference was intended to continue the dialogue on research academies and new realms of communication, as explained by Johannes Feichtinger in his introductory remarks.

The conference sought to move the focus beyond individual actors, as well as examine what specific role universities had under National Socialism, and if this changed under the cold war. Was there a Nazi science policy, and if so, what did it consist of? The question of why and how occupied regions collaborated was posed in the introductory remarks of Rainer Godel and Johannes Feichtinger. They also noted the transnational and hegemonic nature of science policy, and interrogated for whom this science policy was created and intended. Michal Simunek then noted that the conference brought together a broad range in time, but also melded together the cross national perspectives of the conference. He posed the question of what it meant for research communities, and how the subordination of research and teaching to the war effort impacted scientific cooperation. Simunek also argued that while science is often viewed as objective, the history of science, medicine and technology was always used as a propaganda tool, integral to the illusion of power and supremacy in the National Socialist system. The starting point of the conferences panel discussions pertained to what extent national socialism created or altered scientific cooperation.

The first panel discussed the Anschluss of 1938 and its impact on science organisations. Within this panel, JOHANNES FEICHTINGER (Vienna) noted that the centralisation of universities in the Nazi system was largely an illusion, however the subordination of university administration in occupied regions contributed to this illusion. They also noted that the research budget increased as the war progressed, up to 30 percent annually, which needs to be examined in more detail. DIETER HOFFMAN (Berlin) discussed the dismissal of non-Aryan and Jewish employees in 1938 from the Austrian office of Metrology and the subordination of this organisation to the centralised Reich system. The second panel concerned the Nazification of University research in occupied countries, with AISLING SHALVEY (Halle), who spoke on the gradual Nazification and symbolism of the university, and how this could be seen in the student theses. The university was seen as a method of Nazi science for future generations through instilling these topics and ideas in student work. PIOTR MAJEWSKI (Warsaw) discussed the symbolic continuity of the Warsaw university through underground activity. He noted that despite 60 percent of university buildings and 95 percent of scientific instruments being destroyed, students continued to study in secret, and that this underground education provided a sense of freedom and the future for students, while maintaining scientific networks and contacts.

The keynote speaker for the first day was MITCHELL G. ASH (Vienna), who spoke about science policy changes in times of political upheaval. His presentation questioned who grants autonomy to whom, and at what cost. He also noted that the process of change in regime is largely fluid and a continuous process, allowing certain degrees of autonomy which gradually decrease. Ash described a continuous process of symbolic remaining, realignments, restructuring, as well as administrative processes intended to restructure what staff, research, and policies the intended institution would have. He discussed symbolic and epistemic nationalisation, but noted that the Germanisation of subjects was of very limited success. He noted the importance of student groups, as restructuring was often based on grassroots movements and student protests. Finally, Ash noted that there was no unified science policy in a practical sense, and he also discussed how the different dates of the establishment of European academies of science reflected this negotiation process unfolding.

Panel 3 addressed the topic of Nazi research policy in occupied countries. MICHAL ŠIMŮNEK (Prague) and MILOŠ HOŘEJŠ (Prague) presented the first oil pipeline in Bohemia and Moravia. This pipeline was ultimately a question of the distribution of resources and infrastructure for exploitation, and illustrated how science policy altered the production of fuel, chemicals and armaments in the protectorate based on this pipeline. CHRISTOPHE ECKES (Nancy) provided an example of Nazi scientific policy in occupied France, looking at a case study of Gaston Julia and the scientific nature of solicitation from high ranking scientists with ideological motives.

The fourth panel addressed the topic of institutional policy in neutral and occupied countries. KARL GRANDIN (Stockholm) spoke on The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1943, and how it tried to position itself as a central neutral ground to facilitate scientific discussion during the war. However he notes that this was for the most part an ideal that could not be realised, given political trade agreements with different sides as the war progressed, and the politics involved in scientists referencing each other's work. CÉLINE FELLAG ARIOUET (Nancy) presented the international bureau of weights and measures from 1933 to 1960, noting that it was one of the few international organisations in the occupied zone, in part because of the strategic location. She provided the example of Wilhlem Kösters as an official representative of Germany at the meetings, while his involvement was later written out of the organisation in the postwar era to absolve the institution of collaboration.

Panel 5 was on the topic of Soviet and German Science Policy in the Soviet Union and its Sphere of Interest, with Michal Šimůnek as the chair. VIKTORAIYA SUKOVATA (Kharkiv) spoke on Soviet Science and Scientists during World War II, and the strategic importance of science in the soviet system due to mass industrialisation leading to an increase in demand for scientists. Scientists were considered essential to the war effort, and she discussed how the war brought science and politics closer together. ERKI TAMMIKSAAR (Tartu) discussed German and Soviet Science Policy and Science in Estonia from the 1920s to the 1960s. He noted the initial attempt to identify itself as neither Russian nor German, but despite this, it was influenced by the legacy of occupation through being educated by foreign professors, and later the scientific exchange programs with the USSR.

The sixth panel was chaired by Giovanni Paoloni on the topic of fractures and continuities in 1945. ANNALISA CAPRISTO (Rome) addressed Italian Scientists and the Consequences of Anti-Jewish Persecution Before and After 1945. She noted that with the rise in facism came the rise in antisemitic attacks, leading to the emigration of Jewish scientists and the devastation of Italian science. However, she notes that this emigration led to an increased international network and new collaborations in science. MARTIN FRANC (Prague) discussed The Era of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and its Influence on the Postwar Organization of Non-University Academic Institutions. He discussed the closure of the Czech speaking universities in 1939, and how individual organisations reacted quite differently and negotiated with the regime in multiple ways. The final panellist was GEORGY S. LEVIT (Jena) who spoke about Surviving Totalitarian Regimes from National Socialism to the GDR. He discussed the multiple different ways scientists interacted with totalitarian regimes, ranging from collaboration, to quiet neutrality, in order to continue scientific study, often with beneficial career effects after the war.

One day three, the seventh panel on the topic of science policy in a neutral country was chaired by Rainer Godel, in which SVEN WIDMALM (Uppsala) discussed neutral science policy in the case of Sweden. He discussed how Sweden had declared itself neutral ground for scientific exchange, however in reality collaboration with industry, study trips, economic and military exchanges with Germany throughout the war meant that this neutrality was opportunistic. Panel eight on the topic of Science Reconstruction in a Non-Aligned State was chaired by Claude Debru. DRAGOMIR BONDZIC (Belgrade) presented on nuclear science in Yugoslavia. He described the three separate nuclear institutes in conflict over funding, and noted how centralisation of these institutes ultimately led to the reduction of research. ALEŠ GABRIC (Ljubljana) discussed the shaping of Slovenian science policy after the Second World War. He focused on the decline in investment in science and the growth of domestic science literature in the aftermath of the Comintern. The final panel was chaired by Heiner Fangerau on science diplomacy in cold war Europe. NILS HANSSON (Düsseldorf) and THORSTEN HALLING (Düsseldorf) spoke about “Insights into Scientific Networks and Knowledge Transfer in the Baltic Sea Region during the Cold War via Travel Reports and Oral History”. They noted the processes of the transfer of knowledge including the questionnaire on political affiliations and how scientific collaboration continued despite concerns over communist interference. CLAUDE DEBRU (Paris) spoke about the Scientific Relationships between France and the Eastern Bloc Countries, noting that despite the very different systems in place for French and Soviet science, the CNRS and Interkosmos depended on each other for scientific exchange in the space program. SANDRA KLOS (Vienna) addressed the Austrian scientific exchange program during the Cold war. She explained how while scientific exchange programs opened up the West to Eastern countries via exchange programs, these exchange programs were quite one-sided, with 56 percent of all exchanges incoming to Austria, as Austria became a central point for scientific exchange.

Conference Overview:

Panel 1: The “Anschluss” of 1938 and its Impact on Science Organization

Chair: Mitchell G. Ash (Vienna)

Johannes Feichtinger (Vienna) / Siegfried Göllner (Vienna): A “Friendly Takeover”? The Liquidation of the Austrian Education and Research System after the “Anschluss”, and its Impact on Science Organization

Dieter Hoffmann (Berlin): A Hostile Takeover? The History of the Austrian Federal Office of Metrology and Surveying in the period following the “Anschluss” (1938–1945)

Panel 2: The Nazification of University Research in Occupied Countries

Chair: Piotr Szlanta (Vienna)

Aisling Shalvey (Halle): “Dethroning the Sorbonne”: Creating the Reichsuniversität Straßburg and the Nazification of Science in Occupied Alsace

Piotr Majewski (Warsaw): Secret University: People, Management, Research. The University of Warsaw, 1940–1944: A Case Study

Keynote

Chair: Karl Grandin (Stockholm)

Mitchell G. Ash (Vienna): Science Policy Changes in Times of Political Upheaval

Panel 3: Nazi Research Policy in Occupied Countries

Chair: Martin Franc (Prague)

Michal Šimůnek (Prague) / Miloš Hořejš (Prague): A New Infrastructure for the New Reich: On Contexts of the First Oil Pipeline in Bohemia and Moravia, 1941–1945

Christophe Eckes (Nancy): Recruiting French Mathematicians for the Zentralblatt and the Jahrbuch: An Example of Nazi Scientific Policy in Occupied France

Panel 4: Institutional Policy in Neutral and Occupied Countries

Chair: Dieter Hoffmann (Berlin)

Karl Grandin (Stockholm): Belligerent Suitors – Scientific Courtship in the Middle of the War: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1943

Céline Fellag Ariouet (Nancy): The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) 1933–1960: An International Scientific Organization near Paris, from the Rise of National Socialism to Postwar Reconfigurations

Panel 5: Soviet and German Science Policy in the Soviet Union and its Sphere of Interest

Chair: Michal Šimůnek (Prague)

Viktoriya Sukovata (Kharkiv): Soviet Science and Scientists during World War II: Challenges and Achievements

Erki Tammiksaar (Tartu): German and Soviet Science Policy and Science in Estonia from the 1920s to the 1960s

Panel 6: 1945: Fractures and Continuities

Chair: Giovanni Paoloni (Rome

Annalisa Capristo (Rome): Reknitting “the Ties Broken by the Storm”? Italian Scientists and the Consequences of Anti-Jewish Persecution Before and After 1945

Martin Franc (Prague): The Era of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and its Influence on the Postwar Organization of Non-University Academic Institutions

Georgy S. Levit (Jena): From the Third Reich to the GDR: Surviving Totalitarian Regimes as Hangers-On

Panel 7: Science Policy in a Neutral Country

Chair: Rainer Godel (Halle)

Sven Widmalm (Uppsala): Neutral Science Policy: The Case of Sweden

Panel 8: Science Reconstruction in a Non-Aligned State

Chair: Claude Debru (Paris)

Dragomir Bondžić (Belgrade): The Development of Nuclear Science in Yugoslavia after the Second World War (1945–1960)

Aleš Gabrič (Ljubljana): The Shaping of Slovenian Science Policy after the Second World War

Panel 9: Science Diplomacy in Cold War Europe

Chair: Heiner Fangerau

Nils Hansson (Düsseldorf) / Thorsten Halling (Düsseldorf): Bridging the Baltic Sea: Insights into Scientific Networks and Knowledge Transfer in the Baltic Sea Region during the Cold War via Travel Reports and Oral History

Claude Debru (Paris): Some Remarks on the Scientific Relationships between France and the Eastern Bloc Countries, 1945–1966

Sandra Klos (Vienna): The Exchange of Scientists in Cold War Europe as a Means of Diplomacy across the Iron Curtain, 1965–1991: The Austrian Scientific Exchange Program in Context