It can be noted that the geopolitical theories of Halford J. Mackinder influenced Karl Haushofer’s investigations of Mackinder’s “heartland” theory and other studies that Nazi Germany would later employ in their political campaign from the 1930’s until 1945. Mackinder’s “heartland” theory suggests that parts of eastern Europe and Asia make up for a continental piece of land known as the “heartland”, which after examination and study, Mackinder was convinced that it provided that most national potentialities for whoever occupies that area ranging in a number of things from military mobility, economic resources, and other sovereign interests. At the time that Mackinder developed his theories not much talk about Germany was presented by him as
…show more content…
In an excerpt where he is speaking on Germany, Hitler states, “we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers”, being a reality Hitler saw and was disgusted by (p. 36). Hitler also in the text can be found questioning “to what extent the demand for soil and territory seems ethically and morally justified” as these questions came from his realization of Germany’s size and position in the world (p. 36). We can see that much of Hitler’s speech from the “Main Kampf” (1942) reflect his visions of national expansion through the acquisition of territory and land, which if we account with ones understanding of the works of Haushofer, it can be seen how Haushofer’s studies would influence Nazi planning for strategic military expansion operations. In another excerpt within the “Main Kampf” (1942), Hitler notes that, “neither western nor eastern orientation must be the future goal of our foreign policy, but an eastern policy in the sense of acquiring the necessary soil for our German people”, as this can be interrupted as potential foreshadowing by Führer of his intentions to move East ward into Eastern Europe, Russia, and parts of Asia. (p. 39). …show more content…
It can be assumed that prior to having access to Haushofer’s work it would have been difficult for the Nazi party to understand geopolitics to the extent they did. In the German form of “geopolitiks” Haushofer’s work today makes him a proponent of the subject, but also can indicate to us much about Nazi strategic concerns. Mackinder’s theory further analyzed would suggest to the Nazi party looking for military advantages that portions of Eastern Europe and Asia (Eurasia) is beneficial to them for land mobility. For example, due to the arctic closing off the upper portion of the heartland and mobile advantages that the inner and outer insecular crescent provide, while accounting for the rich resources that exists in Eastern Europe and Asia, as Mackinder references by noting “Odessa has here risen to importance with the rapidity of an American city” (p. 30), we see that from both a tactical and strategic prospective the heartlands geographical location would give Nazi Germany a favourable advantage over world nations. Furthermore, Hitler’s decision to break his deal with Russia can be further evidence that the Nazi’s considered Eastern European expansion delicately important to their plans for global domination when they opened a double frontier war against the West and East.
In an excerpt where he is speaking on Germany, Hitler states, “we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers”, being a reality Hitler saw and was disgusted by (p. 36). Hitler also in the text can be found questioning “to what extent the demand for soil and territory seems ethically and morally justified” as these questions came from his realization of Germany’s size and position in the world (p. 36). We can see that much of Hitler’s speech from the “Main Kampf” (1942) reflect his visions of national expansion through the acquisition of territory and land, which if we account with ones understanding of the works of Haushofer, it can be seen how Haushofer’s studies would influence Nazi planning for strategic military expansion operations. In another excerpt within the “Main Kampf” (1942), Hitler notes that, “neither western nor eastern orientation must be the future goal of our foreign policy, but an eastern policy in the sense of acquiring the necessary soil for our German people”, as this can be interrupted as potential foreshadowing by Führer of his intentions to move East ward into Eastern Europe, Russia, and parts of Asia. (p. 39). …show more content…
It can be assumed that prior to having access to Haushofer’s work it would have been difficult for the Nazi party to understand geopolitics to the extent they did. In the German form of “geopolitiks” Haushofer’s work today makes him a proponent of the subject, but also can indicate to us much about Nazi strategic concerns. Mackinder’s theory further analyzed would suggest to the Nazi party looking for military advantages that portions of Eastern Europe and Asia (Eurasia) is beneficial to them for land mobility. For example, due to the arctic closing off the upper portion of the heartland and mobile advantages that the inner and outer insecular crescent provide, while accounting for the rich resources that exists in Eastern Europe and Asia, as Mackinder references by noting “Odessa has here risen to importance with the rapidity of an American city” (p. 30), we see that from both a tactical and strategic prospective the heartlands geographical location would give Nazi Germany a favourable advantage over world nations. Furthermore, Hitler’s decision to break his deal with Russia can be further evidence that the Nazi’s considered Eastern European expansion delicately important to their plans for global domination when they opened a double frontier war against the West and East.