This article will discuss the contribution of Halford John Mackinder, one of the earliest and most influential of the contributors to the discussion. Around the young geographer, Halford J. Mackinder, grew concerned with the changing balance of international power. He argued that. This largely outdated view influenced some geopolitical thinking. Sir Halford John Mackinder was a British geographer who wrote a paper in.

Author: Zolosar Narr
Country: Mauritius
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 21 March 2014
Pages: 77
PDF File Size: 7.28 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.59 Mb
ISBN: 938-2-16242-684-2
Downloads: 71719
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Magor

Inhe received the Charles P. If we approach Eurasia as if it were a chessboard, then we will be met by opponentsand cooperation and mutual benefit would be removed from our calculations. In other projects Wikimedia Commons Wikisource.

His Britain and the British Seas2nd ed. While this may have had some relevance when there was the potential for the rest of the world to be dominated by the communists, as long as the great powers of the World Island continue to be wedded to the free market and do not perceive US power to be threateningthen there is little danger of their voluntarily shutting their doors to the American market and investment structure.

Many geopolitical “truths” that have passed into the canon of security intellectuals rarely get a proper reexamination to determine their relevance to the constantly evolving nature of the system.

Halford Mackinder – Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Geopoliticians, by all uses of that term, seem to claim to understand the eternal and fundamental geographical realities in a way that automatically places their analyses above those of ordinary strategists. Today, almost a century after halfkrd “Heartland” theory came into being, there is renewed interest in the region that Mackinder considered the key to world dominance. Some fear that a Eurasian alliance would be capable of shutting off trade with the United States, ruining our economy and standard of living.

In debunking geopolitics as a “pseudoscience,” Mackincer Turner made the seemingly obvious point in that “the high mobility of land power on the steppes. While Mackinder’s warnings of the advantages inherent in central positioning on the Eurasian landmass certainly became incorporated into Cold War American strategic thought and policy, some observers seem to believe that the principle architects of US foreign policy throughout the Cold War era must have been carrying Mackinder in their briefcases.


Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. The most influential American geopolitician to emerge out of the furor created by Haushofer and the quest for Lebensraum was Yale University professor Nicholas Spykman.

Director of the London School of Economics — He received a degree in biology in and one in modern history the next year. This gap in the natural defenses led to the famous conclusion that whoever ruled Eastern Europe would be in an advantageous position to rule the Heartland, and therefore the World Island, and therefore the world.

He reiterated and expanded his Heartland view of the world, suggesting that the Atlantic Ocean would be jumped, with North America’s influence pulled into the region by its use of Britain as an “moated aerodrome”. Using Mackinder’s own qualifications, it appears that he has placed the key geographical position in the wrong part of the world. Worse than mirages, these ideas can cripple the way we run our foreign policy in the new century.

Signs of Mackinder’s Heartland Theory can be found in the works of geopolitician Dimitri Kitsikisparticularly in his ” Intermediate Region ” model. American policymakers have continuously underestimated the impact that a hegemon can have on the “rules of the game” because they are wedded to the archaic realist and geopolitical notion that those rules do not change.

But more important, the Heartland can be considered a fortress only by standards of 19th-century technology. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

The three overlap in Central Asia, which is the only region where the Cold War tradition of “triangular diplomacy” may well become a reality again if geopolitical concerns dominate our strategy.


PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly – Summer

Germany has always been at a disadvantage because of her position in the heart of Europe. Yet that conventional wisdom, as well as many of the other assumptions that traditionally inform our policy, has not been subjected to enough scrutiny in light of the changed international realities.

Similarly, the central positioning of the Heartland of Eurasia has never been geopolitically advantageous to its inhabitants. It seems to be natural for the human mind to use analogies and slogans to comprehend situations that geoploitics difficult to grasp.

The Geographical Pivot of History

Perhaps the important point was that geographical defenses would allow the Heartland power to exploit its resources and consolidate its power, uninterrupted by conquest and devastation. Canada, second largest country in the world in area after Russiaoccupying roughly the northern two-fifths…. He was a member of the Coefficients dining clubgekpolitics up in by the Fabian campaigners Sidney and Beatrice Webbwhich brought together social reformers and advocates of national efficiency.

As was described above, Henry Kissinger used the term geopolitics to denote any policy dependent upon power principles at the expense of ideology and “sentimentality.

Conventional wisdom holds that geopolitlcs a power dominating the resources of Eurasia would have the potential to threaten the interests of the United States. To Cold War strategists, this central positioning made containment a nightmare, for it necessitated defense of the enormous littoral rimlands.

In the past, during what he described as the Columbian Epoch, increased mobility that the sea provided put naval powers at a distinct advantage over their territorial adversaries. If the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth were to conceptualize foreign policy as a chess game, it would virtually ensure that other nations would as well.