SCRIPT - Examining Mackinder's Heartland Thesis (28/05/2017)

Examining Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis

‘Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland,

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island,

Who rules the World-Island commands the World.’

This video will examine one of geopolitics’ most famous theories – Halford Mackinder’s ‘Heartland Thesis’. It will outline the assumptions behind the theory, go through its reasoning, and assess its recommendations and insights.

 

Mackinder was a British geographer. His life, from 1861 to 1947, spanned the period from Pax Britannica to the First and Second World Wars. He served as a Member of Parliament from 1910 to 1922, and was High Commissioner in Southern Russia from 1919 to 1922. All these experiences gave him a deep sense of British interests, which informed his Thesis.

For Mackinder, geography is the art of looking at the past in order to inform the present. In other words, the characteristics of terrain influences the development of societies. As an example, lowland plains with little vegetation offer few defensive points from which to resist enemy armies, so such terrain historically tended to come under the rule of a single power, with defeated peoples completely overrun and annexed by the victors.

Such thinking has seen Mackinder labelled as a ‘geographic determinist’ who ignored the role of human agency in history. In reality, Mackinder allowed for acts of will, but also believed that ‘Nature in large measure controls’. One could swim against the current of geography, but in the long run, successful societies tended to go along with and adapt to the flow.

Mackinder also sees technology as equally influential to history, shaping how geography affects societies. As another example, during his day Mackinder regarded rainforests as inhospitable, but envisioned that with technology, they could eventually support large populations. The Heartland Thesis is as much a technology-based theory as it is a geography-based one.

There are, in fact, three Heartland Theses. Mackinder sketched out an outline during a 1904 lecture called ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’, elaborated further in his 1919 book ‘Democratic Ideals and Reality’, and finally in 1943 penned an article about it, titled ‘The Round World and the Winning of the Peace’. Each version was adapted to the prevailing political situation: the pre-First World War rivalry between the European powers in 1904, the post-First World War redrawing of the European map in 1919, and the fight against Nazi Germany in 1943.

There are differences in details: the phrase ‘Geographical Pivot of History’ is really only used in 1904, while the famous triad at the beginning of the video appears in 1919. The Heartland’s exact boundaries are adjusted with each version. But despite these differences, a common thread still runs through the versions, forming the core Heartland Thesis.

The Thesis starts with a simple observation: after 1900, there would be no more empty political space in the world. All lands would now politically connected to some degree, with political events in London having consequences in China or South America. This much was obvious in the age of imperialism, but what was less obvious was that the relationship also held in reverse, with political events in South America or China having an impact on Europe.

The Thesis argues against regional politics: politicians cannot be concerned simply about the balance of power in Europe or East Asia; they have to consider these things on a global scale, if only because there was one region, generally ignored by leaders on the eve of World War One, that held the key to world domination.

The Thesis splits the world into two parts: the World-Island, consisting of mainland Europe, Asia and Africa; and what this video will call the ‘Outer Islands’, consisting of the Americas, Australasia, and the offshore islands of Eurasia and Africa, chief among them Japan and Britain.

Mackinder estimated that the World-Island, in 1919, contained two-thirds of the global landmass and seven-eighths of its population. If any country or alliance ever dominated the supercontinent, it would easily outproduce the Outer Islands in weapons – soldiers, ships, and undoubtedly even nuclear weapons – and ultimately conquer them. Thus the last statement in Mackinder’s Triad: ‘Who rules the World-Island commands the World’.

But how to control the World-Island in the first place? The Thesis divides the supercontinent into two regions: the ‘Inner Crescent’ or ‘Rimlands’; and the Heartland.

The Rimlands, consisting of Arabia, Western Europe, India and East Asia, make up only one-fifth of the World-Island’s area but house four-fifths of its population. Using Mackinder’s earlier logic, this region ought to be the place from which to attempt World-Island domination.

And indeed, Mackinder freely admits that in his day, the Rimlands were the more powerful part of the World-Island. This was because the period from 1500-1900 saw great advances in naval technology. Better ships let coastal Rimlanders travel faster and farther than anything on land, giving them large strategic flexibility.

This meant that Rimlanders could bypass defenses, strike rear areas, and wreak havoc before land powers could even respond. Thus able to choose their battles, Rimland powers during this period had nothing to fear from land armies, and could therefore create their empires with little risk.

But even then, the Rimlands could not dominate the World-Island. After all, they had not touched the Heartland.

The Heartland is defined through its inaccessibility to naval power. The region is separated from the ocean by Arctic ice to the north, the Carpathian, Zagros, Himalaya and Altai mountains along its south, and the Arabian, Gobi and Yakutian deserts in between. Its rivers either flow into inland seas or into the Arctic. Rimland naval forces therefore have no path into the Heartland, which Mackinder sees as ‘the greatest natural fortress on earth’.

The Heartland has two additional characteristics. Firstly, the region is primarily lowland steppe, and as mentioned earlier, such terrain generally results in one power taking control of the entire place. Secondly, the Heartland’s arid climate means that settled agriculture was historically downplayed in favor of nomadism, contributing to the region’s low population.

These characteristics meant that the Heartland was historically home to nomadic hordes who, thanks to their cavalry mobility, were the ones with the large strategic flexibility. Additionally, the Heartland’s central position meant that the hordes were also only a short ride away from any part of the Rimlands: the Huns struck at Western Europe, the Turks at the Middle East, Tamerlane at India, and the Manchus at China. The Mongols, of course, attacked all four regions and in doing so, achieved near-domination of the World Island.

Heartland nomads thus terrorized the Rimlands, but without modern governments or large populations, they could not fully dominate the populous coasts. This was even more the case by 1900, with horses outclassed by steamships. Industrial might was needed in order to construct the Heartland’s equivalent to Rimland naval mobility – rail.

The Thesis argues that rail-based mobility is superior to naval mobility. Firstly, a navy needs bases on land for repair and refuel, and its range would be vastly restricted should a land power ever take them. Secondly, naval power projection requires transiting at ports, and so a comparable rail movement, especially a direct one, is generally going to be faster. Lastly, the development of air power disproportionately benefits land powers, who now can attack ships and deny access to waterways from land.

The Thesis envisions that under an industrial power, the Heartland would be overlaid with rail and road networks – and when that happens, its rulers would, once again, possess superior mobility and strategic flexibility over the Rimlands. The political situation on the World-Island would thus revert back to the pre-1500 configuration, only this time with an industrial power taking the place of the nomads, and capable of actually conquering the Rimlands and dominating the World-Island. Thus the second statement in Mackinder’s Triad: ‘Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island’.

Who could these potential rulers be? In 1904, the answer was Russia. With its increasing industrial prowess, Russia would eventually railroad over the Heartland and then send its armies into the Rimlands. One successful thrust into Arabia would split the Rimlands, allowing the defeat of Europe and Asia in detail. And with the World-Island under control, it was only a matter of time before Russia built a gigantic navy and conquered the Outer Islands as well.

But by 1919, Russia’s collapse had caused Mackinder to look elsewhere. While the Heartland is surrounded by natural barriers on its northern, southern and eastern flanks, its western flank – Eastern Europe – opens gently onto the North German plain. Eastern Europe was thus the doorway to the Heartland, and any conquest was likely to begin from that direction and, if successful, would see the Heartland come under a new ruler. Thus the first statement in Mackinder’s Triad: ‘Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland’. Unsurprisingly, Mackinder saw Germany here as the prime candidate for Heartland dominance.

Lastly, Mackinder also noted in 1904 that a China that conquered or allied with Russia could also become a Heartland ruler. Such a combination would be very dangerous, as China already possessed significant coastline and thus could combine both the superior mobility of the Heartland with the extensive reach of naval power.

Whatever the identity of the Heartland power, its geographic advantages make it a latent threat to all nations. But the Heartland Thesis is meant to be a warning, not an inevitability. Mackinder intended it to inform British policy, and proposed remedies to prevent the Heartland power from achieving world domination.

Firstly, the Heartland’s separation from the ocean is both an advantage and a disadvantage: it cannot be touched by navies, but neither can it initially create one that challenges Rimland maritime dominance. Rimland powers should therefore prevent the Heartland power from acquiring more warm-water coastlines. In particular, defending the Middle East is of critical importance, given its position as a key node for maritime communications.

Secondly, the Heartland should be kept small and divided. The unifying effects of lowland steppe can be overcome with sustained action: in this vein, Mackinder in 1919 advocated the establishment and protection of new Eastern European states, who formed a buffer zone separating Russia from Germany and vice versa.

In addition, Rimland powers should ensure that the seas of the World-Island remain open to their navies. Since the Heartland is defined by its inaccessibility to naval power, closure of semi-enclosed seas like the Black, Red or Baltic would effectively extend the Heartland, and deliver more land into the Heartland power’s embrace.

                                                                                                          

Lastly, even a strong Heartland can be balanced out by Rimland alliances. The Rimland powers still own the more productive parts of the World-Island, and combined their strength can overcome the Heartland’s geographic advantage. In 1943, Mackinder saw the ‘building up’ of India and China as helpful towards achieving such balance.

Of particular importance was the ‘Midland-Ocean’ alignment, proposed by Mackinder in 1943. Consisting of the Americas in league with Western Europe, Mackinder noted that such an alliance would combine the industrial strength of the former with the geographical position of the latter, ensuring that any Heartland attempt at domination would result in prompt and effective intervention.

Ultimately, is Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis correct? Clearly the Thesis simplifies the world’s geography, overestimates the logistical capacity of land transport, and while it does not expect Heartland powers to dominate the World-Island overnight, neither Imperial Russia, nor the Soviet Union, nor Nazi Germany ever came close to doing so – though of course one can argue that this was due to coordinated Rimland opposition. One can accept most of the Thesis’ assumptions and come to different conclusions, as Spykman did with his ‘Rimlands’ theory or Haushofer with his pseudo-Nazi geopolitik.

But perhaps the Heartland has simply not yet found the right master to fully exploit its potential: maybe it would take a fully industrialized China or India, or more, to finally sweep the Rimlands away. Either way, right or wrong the Heartland Thesis has had significant influence on geopolitical thinking, and its discussion remains relevant to this day.

Thanks for watching the video!