ho.history-overview
(Edited in accordance with suggestions in comments.)
I remember once I read a quote that sounded like "graph theory is the scum of topology" (please approximate). I can not find it on the web, and I can not remember who said this. Or did I dream it after a heavy meal?
A difference between what Gel'fand did and what the Germans were doing is that in 1930s-style algebraic geometry you had the basic geometric spaces of interest in front of you at the start. Gel'fand, on the other hand, was starting with suitable classes of rings (like commutative Banach algebras) and had to create an associated abstract space on which the ring could be viewed as a ring of functions. And he was very successful in pursuing this idea. For comparison, the Wikipedia reference on schemes says Krull had some early (forgotten?) ideas about spaces of prime ideals, but gave up on them because he didn't have a clear motivation. At least Gel'fand's work showed that the concept of an abstract space of ideals on which a ring becomes a ring of functions was something you could really get mileage out of. It might not have had an enormous influence in algebraic geometry, but it was a basic successful example of the direction from rings to spaces (rather than the other way around) that the leading French algebraic geometers were all aware of.
There is an article by Dieudonne on the history of algebraic geometry in Amer. Math. Monthly 79 (1972), 827--866 (see http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2317664.pdf) in which he writes nothing about the work of Gelfand.
There is an article by Kolmogorov in 1951 about Gel'fand's work (for which he was getting the Stalin prize -- whoo hoo!) in which he writes about the task of finding a space on which a ring can be realized as a ring of functions, and while he writes about algebra he says nothing about algebraic geometry. (See http://www.mathnet.ru/php/getFT.phtml?jrnid=rm&paperid=6872&what=fullt&option_lang=rus, but it's in Russian.) An article by Fomin, Kolmogorov, Shilov, and Vishik marking Gel'fand's 50th birthday (see http://www.mathnet.ru/php/getFT.phtmljrnid=rm&paperid=6872&what=fullt&option_lang=rus, more Russian) also says nothing about algebraic geometry.
Is it conceivable Gel'fand did his work without knowing of the role of maximal ideals as points in algebraic geometry? Sure. First of all, the school around Kolmogorov didn't have interests in algebraic geometry. Second of all, Gel'fand's work on commutative Banach algebras had a specific goal that presumably focused his attention on maximal ideals: find a shorter proof of a theorem of Wiener on nonvanishing Fourier series. (Look at http://mat.iitm.ac.in/home/shk/public_html/wiener1.pdf, which is not in Russian. :)) A nonvanishing function is a unit in a ring of functions, and algebraically the units are the elements lying outside any maximal ideal. He probably obtained the idea that a maximal ideal in a ring of functions should be the functions vanishing at one point from some concrete examples.
What strikes me about the first fifty years of homology theory (from Poincaré to Eilenberg-Steenrod's book) is that the development was as much about stripping away unnecessary complication as about increasing sophistication. A famous example is singular homology, which was found very late, by Eilenberg. The construction as we know it presumably seemed too naive to Lefschetz, who misguidedly devised a theory of oriented simplices, and inadequate to those who were interested in general (not locally path connected) metric spaces.
I want to suggest that this process of stripping away is relevant to the introduction of cohomology and its product. (Cf. Dieudonné's "History of algebraic and differential topology", pp.78-81). I won't directly answer the questions, but will suggest that one of the motivations for cohomology came from an application of Pontryagin duality which was rendered obsolete by the new theory.
Alexander wrote up his Moscow conference talk, with improvements suggested by Cech, in a 1936 Annals paper (vol. 37 no. 3) (JSTOR link). In it, he proposes the cohomology ring ("connectivity ring") as a fundamental homological invariant of a space. In the introduction he hints at the line of thought that led him to the cohomology ring. The relation between cycles and differential forms is mentioned (without citation of de Rham), but what looks more surprising to modern eyes is the comment that the theory of cycles "has been very greatly perfected by Pontrjagin's cycles with real coefficients reduced modulo 1".
Pontryagin had recently developed his duality theory for locally compact abelian groups (Annals, 1934) in order to apply it to Alexander duality (again, Annals, 1934). If $K$ is a compact polyhedral complex in $\mathbb{R}^n$, there is a linking form which gives a pairing between $k$-cycles of $K$ and $(n-k-1)$-cycles of $\mathbb{R}^n-K$ and, in modern terms, induces an isomorphism of $H_k(K)$ with $H^{n-k-1}(\mathbb{R}^n-K)$. Alexander's formulation equated the Betti numbers over a field (mod 2, initially - Dieudonné p. 57) of $K$ and its complement, but it was understood that the full homology groups of $K$ and $\mathbb{R}^n-K$ need not be isomorphic. Pontryagin showed that if one takes a Pontryagin-dual pair of metric abelian groups, say $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{T}$, so that each is the character group of the other, then $H_k(K;\mathbb{T})$ is Pontryagin-dual to $H_{n-k-1}(\mathbb{R}^n-K;\mathbb{Z})$ via the linking form.
From Alexander's introduction:
Now, if we use Pontrjagin's cycles, the $k$th connectivity [homology] group of a compact, metric space becomes a compact, metric group. Moreover, by a theorem of Pontrjagin, every such group may be identified with the character group of a countable, discrete group. This immediately suggests the advisability of regarding the discrete group, rather than its equivalent (though more complicated) metric character group as the $k$th invariant of a space.... One decided advantage of taking the discrete groups...as the fundamental connectivity groups of a space is that we can then take the product...of two elements of the same or different groups.
Guided by Pontryagin's generalisation of his own duality theorem, Alexander finds a simple construction that supersedes Pontryagin's as a basic invariant. (The universal coefficient theorem gives a modern perspective on why Pontryagin's choice of coefficient groups works. I must admit, his formulation of duality is very clean.)
Can anyone comment on Kolmogorov's route to cohomology?
ADDED. On obstruction theory: Charles Matthews's comments draw attention to a 1940 paper of Eilenberg. The MathSciNet review of that paper (by Hurewicz, whose homotopy groups, useful for obstruction theory, date from 1935-36) points me to its 1937 forerunner by Whitney, "The maps of an $n$-complex into an $n$-sphere" (Duke M.J. 3 (no.1), 51-55). This work, too, was presented at the Moscow conference in 1935. Though the topic is different, Whitney's introduction closely resembles Alexander's:
The classes of maps of an $n$-complex into an $n$-sphere were classified by H. Hopf in 1932. Recently, Hurewicz [1935-6] has extended this theorem by replacing the sphere with more general spaces. Freudenthal [1935] and Steenrod have noted that the theorem and proof are simplified by using real numbers reduced mod 1 in place of integers as coefficients in the chains considered. We shall give here a statement of the theorem that seems most natural; the proof is quite simple.... The fundamental tool of the paper is the notion of "coboundary"; it has come into prominence in the last few years.
Best Answer
Graph theory is the slum of topology...
You may have read it in the first paragraph of the very first opinion of Prof. Zeilberger:
Topology: The slum of combinatorics OR "Don't show off too much, your specialty will soon be trivialized"
He attributes it therein to a certain Whitehead too (but it is not clear from his text to which Whitehead he is referring).