The Achilles heel of this thesis is twofold: a vast territory doesn’t convert into vast industrial capacity, a large population, or high capital per capita does. Neither of which the “mainland” has ever had. And indeed even if say Germany or China were to conquere these wastes. In which way would that make these countries stronger? (Aside from potentially acquiring raw material) instead it would extend their borders until securing them with very little additional population would be almost impossible. Secondly it is the inferiority of inland communication and transport to naval shipment that leads to a persisting competitive disadvantage. All in all I don’t really see why this theory should introduce any insight in how to prevent international conflict or how to curb ambition, not even who to look out for. In my opinion free roaming of the seas and how to enable that is key to understanding the power balance on our globe. And yes denying this free roaming to mostly land locked countries like Russia can be advantageous if one sees the landlocked power as a rival. Put according to this theory one should look out for whomever would rule the heartland whilst in history and in present day politics it were and are always populous and rather naval oriented empires that rule.
Yes, I don't think Mackinder's theory has borne out in practice thanks to the underestimation of the naval advantage in shipping as you mention. BUT I disagree with your first interpretation. *Mackinder DOES NOT say that the Heartland is/can be the more populous/resource-based region* . What he is saying is that the Heartland's geographic characteristics allow a Heartland power to overcome Rimland resource/numerical superiority: A) During the 'Naval' Columbian Period 1500-1900, Mackinder argues that the Rimlanders were successful NOT JUST because of their resource superiority BUT because of their ability to concentrate those resources thanks to naval mobility. BUT since naval assets CANNOT access the Heartland, Rimland powers find it very difficult to bring superior numbers to bear when invading Heartland powers. Essentially versus the Heartlanders, Rimlanders can only play defense NOT offense. B) Geographically, Mackinder sees the Heartland in the central position, which brings with it the advantages of interior lines etc. Using interior rail lines (of course M here assumes that rail can be equivalent to naval), a smaller Heartland power can concentrate on larger but more-difficult-to-coordinate Rimland powers and destroy them one by one. So again the issue of resources is negated. C) Left unsaid BUT very likely implied is the racial idea that man-for-man, hardy Heartland steppe folk are better soldiers than decadent Rimland folk and so the numerical problem is again overcome. I'm not picking on you specifically (the Caps are just for emphasis): I think most people do read Mackinder's theory as him endorsing that a Heartland Power as better resource/manpower endowed than Rimlands. This is not the case - *Mackinder's argument is that the Heartland's geography gives better power projection per unit of resource* than Rimlands, which is why one of his prescriptions for resisting the HL is essentially for everybody else to gang up on it.
The advantages of heartland rule are probably best articulated by Russia's colonization of Asia. Defense in depth, strategic space to withdraw in the event of a calamitous war, and access to raw materials seem to be the primary drivers here. Holding the heartland assures that no land power will rise to threaten Moscow from the east, at least overland. At the same time, air and perhaps space technology minimize many of the traditional advantages of holding large tracks of flat land.
in fact, much of CHINA is wasteland which does nothing for the wealth of China, other than being an impregnable barrier for which no one ever wants to pass through. They are the Himalayan mountains, the gobi desert and the inner highlands.
@@SwampGas703 your point is the reason why throughout Russian history, leadership sacrifices land for blood, the common Russian "Scorched Earth" policy. Overall considering technology now, this is the reason why we have nuclear weapons.
@@appa609 Mackinder calls the british isles a "moated aerodrome" while in 1984 the british isles are called "Airstrip One". To me that is more than a coincidence. As-well one could probably nitpick other pieces of certain Mackinder terminology used in Orwell's writing. The two were British authors and learned men in the same era after all.
@@netyimeni169 I mean it's stuck on a prebuilt route and can't go anywhere that's water like a ship can or anywhere on land like a truck. It's _usually_ not a problem with logistics, but it's why armored trains were a dead end.
This theory presupposes the existence of an unicorn: a country that can at the same time use the geographical advantages of the Heartland, while at the same time avoid the geographical disadvantages of the Heartland. As these are extremely closely related, I don't think it's possible.
Hence the need for the dominant state to be from the rim land. That way they have sufficient naval and population capacity to overcome the shortfalls of that particular regions land.
@@thelovertunisia not anymore. The one child policy and imminent demographic collapse, polluting all their water and needing to import massive amounts of food, not having enough energy so needing to import that, and not having the ability to take Taiwan/challenge the US openly have rendered China screwed
I get the feeling that Mackinder went his whole life without ever trying to lift a canoe over his head: he would have realized that no amount of technology will ever change the fact that moving stuff over land is much, much harder than moving it the same distance afloat. Ironic for a Brit.
@@futurei0oo you did see the efficiencies on screen, boats are still twice as efficient as rail. (Maybe maglevs would work but they are also very prower hungry) Also a cornerstone of this theory is that the frozen arctic protects Russia's northern coastline, which is now invalid for 2 reasons. 1. Global warming, its litterally melting and becoming more accessible, just look at satellite data of artic sea ice, only the Canadian archipelago holds onto year round ice. (This is a bad thing) 2. Nuclear submarine missle boats often referred to as "boomers". They can surface through ice if needed and launch missiles with range to easily reach most if the "heartland". The theories favoring naval dominance will always be more accurate. And now with space tech only treaties and MAD prevent space based weapons from being implimented and those will bypass all of earths geography. Currently "He who rules space rules the world" but considering how old the "heartland" theory is i will cut it some slack because these technologies weren't even concieved of then, let alone proven.
@@jadapinkett1656 i have witnessed the weather of my home town shift from harsh winter in December to just icestorms to my first ever green Christmas. Satellite images of the artic show the entire half of the ice cap on the Russian side of the sea as open water in the summer. Refusal to believe something doesn't make it not exist. (Like flat earthers when you can prove the roundness yourself in like 20+ different ways)
I get the feeling that Thomas Groesbeck went his whole life without every actually paying attention to anything before typing a comment and posting it.
It seems like the big flaw in the heartland theory is that much of the heartland is frozen a lot of the time, making it worth much less than other territory.
@@konstantinpakhomov3910 As I understand it, a big problem with this is with global warming occurring(and the russians are aware and are optimistic about it) is that a lot of the infrastructure laid down to move the grain around from the wheat belt will need a massive overhaul to move it north into the thawing lands.
@@konstantinpakhomov3910 Agree. But if it happens it will be probably a very short-lived gain for "heartland" people. Unfrozen land will be offset by more desertification, and massive global migration waves will be triggered towards more habitable areas. (that's already happening, but it will scale up)
Only Mercator Projection should be used to explain mackinder thesis. Since it is the social theory in the view of the British empire. Making British isle larger, and Russia more intimidating.
Let me point out something here, this ‘’heart land’’ thesis, geographical influence on politics, etc. are Schmitt’s ideas, other than that, he didn’t think that controlling the heartland will bring you to control the world, but they way British Empire can end is by loosing the control over the sea by letting the enemy gain control over the hartland. Their biggest fear is Russian-German alliance, that can bring the end of anglo-Saxon sea dominance
I can't thank you enough for this video. I made a bad presentation in school and needed to redo it, but I didn't know what to do or how to remember so much information. Fortunately, I found your video, wrote some notes on it, and studied for my redo. My teacher said she could tell I had done my research this time. Thank you
@@sford2044 Those papers are not a "right or wrong" test, it's about the formation, presentation and conveyance of the information. I'm totally assuming this though.
The best presentation I have seen about Sir Mackinder`s tesis about the geographical pivot of history. The worst nightmare of the anglo-saxon elite: allience between the german technologies and creative thinking from a side, and the vast resources of Russia to the other one.
They never worried about that to begin with since the concept is absurd. It's like worrying about an alliance between the Americans and the Russians to split Europe between them.
My favorite history teacher in high school used to say that the answer to any question about Russia's motives would always boil down to "warm water seaports." And y'know what... that's a very helpful way of understanding Russia.
I saw a picture today with china's President above the French and Germany Presidents at peace talks thank you Pres Nixon for taking us off the gold standard and opening up the China heart land good job.
Thank you for educating me on this … as a 57 year old Brit … I am now beginning to question everything we were taught at school … Some very important things were deliberately missed out !
similar to Fukuyamas theory on how ancient civilizations popped up in river valleys because defeated peoples only had two very obvious directions to go. up stream or downstream.
Frankly any fool could predict civilizations to rise near freshwater sources that also grant mobility. What would be immensely difficult to account for would be a great civilization rising in a desert or tundra. That, too, depends upon how one defines civilization.
@@RepublicConstitution , well said. I'd suggest Rome as a good refutation of Mackinder : it's been knocked over numerous times and is only adequately defended. The same goes for the United Provinces (~1600) in the 80yrs war with Spain. What counts in both these examples is cash. It's self explanatory : if you have the money you can equip an army.
@@RepublicConstitution That civilizations often started in river valleys has hardly anything to do with access to fresh water or mobility on the water. Rivers can transport sediments which makes river valleys often fertile. That is the main reason why civilizations started in river valleys: it is easy to have highly productive agriculture there. And only in river valleys with fertile soils you find great ancient civilizations.
@@vinm300 Spain had more resources and power than the netherlands in the 80 years war. Geography was a huge benefit to the Dutch. There was no land connection that the Spanish could use to attack the Netherlands and naval invasion are really hard to stage. Also the Netherlands are full of trenches to dry up the land. These trenches give huge defensive advantages and won the Dutch the one or other battle. Most of the 80years war was actually not a war. The dutch kicked out the spanish and then the war was entirely on the sea, but never on land again. The war was effectively over after 40 years, but the spanish were salty and only with the peace of westphalia could they be forced to end the war.
@@forschool523 , well said , I enjoyed that reply. However, Philip II went bankrupt 3 times. Went Spanish troops massacred & destroyed Antwerp it was because they hadn't been paid. By the time Spain signed the Peace of Westphalia (1648) they had lost Catalonia and Portugal (1640). France had been at war with them, the English were at war or attacking shipping, the Dutch were attacking shipping even during the 12yr truce. Economically Spain had more income but vastly more expenses. The Dutch republic was the wealthier by far. Actually believe it or not trade continued between the two adversaries for the whole 80yrs : wool & salt from Spain to the Dutch ; grain & Baltic goods from the Dutch to Spain. (Salt was for the herring trade). With Dutch merchants actually supplying Spanish military. And I think Dutch banks lent money to Spain. The Dutch said, "We'd trade with the Devil if our ships didn't burn".
Sounds like China has been reading Mackinder. Their Belt and Road Initiative seems almost copy-pasted. I prefer Mahan myself however. Dominance of the sea and air is the real key. Eurasia certainly has the resources to build a fleet, but one does not simply "build a fleet." Just ask any of Britain's past enemies.
Funny, most of the time the analysis is mostly about China turning ‘Mahan’ with their carriers and stuff (I’ve even read analyses saying they’ve turned ‘Corbett’). The problem is it’s strategic culture is torn between land and sea, kinda like France in the 1700s.
@@StrategyStuff True. I think they have a concomitant strategy of suppressing the rimlands to allow uncontested dominance of the heartland; A2AD, String of Pearls, and all that. But any Mahanistic global dominance of the seas by China, along the lines of Britain 1815-1945 or the U.S. 1945-Present, is a long way off and probably not their main goal. Incidentally, by going for both I think they've doomed themselves in the long-run. Most of their problems come from their naval ambitions, whereas nobody would bat an eye if they focused solely on vassalizing Central Asia.
@@StrategyStuff I think an argument can be made that naval expansion (carriers and ports) is China's "short term strategy", while the OBOR / BRI is their "long-term strategy". In the short term they plan to secure resources and trade lanes for long-term growth. In the long-term they planned to dominate the Eurasia heartland economically and politically (anyone who thinks they can militarily dominate Russia nowadays is daydreaming). This is especially telling in how OBOR is playing out. While the "chain of pearls" has been very vulnerable to outsider (American) interference and making everyone from India to Japan uneasy, the inland route through Central Asia has only managed to bring Russia and China closer together. One can easily see which side of the strategy is more 'reliable'.
It's actually amazing how this thesis ties together WW2, Chinas Belt-and-Road plan and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022, and probably explains some unique Russian sentiments due to their position as holders of the heartland such as "the whole world is against us and it is our inherent destiny to be hated". It's also remarkable that Germany in 1918 basically had managed (as the first nation in history besides Russia) to have the option of just taking over the heartland, and was really only hindered by the Entente's advance onto Germany itself. And I think that we can all agree that German mentality coupled with Russian geography would have single-handedly rewritten world history.
@@wtfbros5110 Yes, if both land powers of Europe were allies, the Entente wouldn't stand a chance. There would be nothing holding both empires back, and nothing keeping them from becoming sea powers.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the prime example of why this heartland thesis fails. Day one Ukraine bombed out almost all rail access into the country, and blew bridges. Given Russia is so heavily dependent on rail to advance they have effectively been denied a swift, mobile army. Their roadway supply efforts are laughable.
Ukraine of today is just Catherine the Great screaming through time. "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." Russia is in the same position today.
This theory seems to be building off of some extreme oversimplifications. For one, this central heartland power would not really be able to match the industrial output of "rimland" powers due to a lack of resources, manpower, and much more. A lot of the comments have already talked about this, but I want to primarily talk about a few other weaknesses in this theory One, Mackinder is assuming that rails (even assuming they are as efficient as naval transport) can be constructed anywhere, easily, and without the same weaknesses as naval. The issue is that rails can easily be cut off and made unusable. Naval, if a port is blocked then it simply needs to head to another port, or it can set ip on the coast, and send small ships to get what it needs, but with rail, if a part of the rail is destroyed, then the rail is made useless to that point until it is repaired fully. On top of that, rails cannot easily be made anywhere. There is a reason why much of Siberia is still inaccessible, it is not because the Soviets and Russia haven't tried to build rails through it, but rather because it is extremely difficult to BUILD and MAINTAIN the rails in the region. Just as much as it may prove a defensive bonus, it so to hinders The heartlands own strength. The next issue is that Mackinder completely ignores Africa, The Americas, and Oceania in this theory. The Americas with their Mountains, Lowlands, and Central Stepped (great plains) have all the same qualities as the "heartlands" while still having easy access to the worlds oceans and none of the drawbacks of Siberia, unfarmable terrain, low population, and low resources. If anything, going by Mackinder's logic whoever controls North America would control the world so long as they controlled north america in its entirety. (historically the reason why this hasn't been the case is because North America has all the resources a nation could dream of having all next to eachother, so the nations that have controlled the region have grown disinterested in the rest of the world they didn't need) Finally, Mackinder is assumiing that Rimworld powers are naval powers, forgetting that many of these nations are in fact land based powers. German, Italy, India, Iran (Persia), Arabia, China, Etc. are all land based powers. They have relatively weak navies, and have historically, and modernly, focused on their armies and land based strength. Notably here is Germany which has shown it's ability to conquer much of the heartlands thanks to its strong military, and thanks to the geography of the great North European Plane (another weakness to this heartlands theory)
Siberia has very vast resources, even more than usa, in natural gas, oil, and minerals. Only see how much they export of all minerals, in many of them is always in the most relevant in the world. And see how much wheat they produce. In the other things you say, you are correct, but what would happen if global warming continues, Russia would dominate the Arctic, have more seaports, and more usable land. And about seaports, with modern technology it's very easy to destroy seaports from far away with missiles and there are some that there is still no defense for them. Remember how Alexander the great destroyed the Persian navy with h little effort neglecting them seaports. And also those same technologies can destroy easily any ship, this is whythe us has a lost war with China in the info Pacific d they don't have India in their side
Where to begin: The problem with Siberia is partly to do with global warming. It doesn't make the land usable and easier to extract resources from, it does the opposite. Melting Permafrost is far more difficult and causes far more problem than frozen permafrost. This further compounds on the issues with rails in maintaining them, and preventing them from getting damaged. As for your statement of Alexander, he never beat the Persian Navy, nor did he ignore it. The Persian Navy was a constant thorn in his side throughout his entire conquests, and ultimately they defected to his side because they did not like the Persian Emperor, and because he was forced to compromise with them. As for the China and US thing, from what I know of history, China and the US have never been in war. There was the US involvement in the Boxer rebellion which was a complete Diplomatic Corps victory, not china. Either way, China, and that region of Asia, is part of the rimland powers. China being strong simply futher disproves Mackander's heartland theory.
This is prior to nuclear energy as well... The ability to exert force and be anywhere thanks to nuclear submarines. This thesis is outta date since WW2. But it is still interesting to think about geo politics and motives of people prior to WW2.
This thesis contradicts with Russia's geography problem. Limited naval access of Heartland is its undoing. Without enough naval trade routes you cannot advance your economy as much as Rimland countries. And without a robust economy forget world dominance.
From my understanding the thesis stipulates that for one power to achieve world domination they need to control the heartland *and* eastern europe. Just the heartland isn't enough, for many reasons. As you say, look at Russia's problems.
@TheoXaris Oh yeah.. poor Russia being bullied by everyone. Nobody lets it dominate the world.. Russians control more than enough. How about doing something useful for once instead of just controlling?
@TheoXaris True. But let's not forget about centuries of Russian imperialism and subsequent Soviet horrors which caused casualties of comparable scales.
@TheoXaris Man, your comment reeks of modern Russian revisionist agitprop. Overwhelming majority of victims of Holodomor were ethnic Ukrainians. No, it wasn't the JEWWWZ who orchestrated communism in Russia (you can stick your antisemitism where the sun don't shine). It was the Russians who adopted and implemented it, and Russians used that ideology later to control the entire Soviet Union and its satelites, continuing the established imperialist tradition. But otherwise, yes, bolshevik terror was generally first targeted at the "internal enemy" before focusing outwards which is a typical trait of totalitarian state. Russian empire was an empire in every sense of the word. The only difference from other European imperialist powers of the time was the geographic limitation mentioned in the video: constrained access to sea and limited naval capability which then couldn't compete with established powers. As a result Russian imperialism focused inland, the only direction where it could progress. The "ending barbarism and bringing civilization" shtick is what literally every imperialist power uses to justify their actions. Demonizing enemy, painting thier own imperialism as "self-defense" and necessary to restore civilization. Yes, Russians suffered under the Mongol Khanates (although I very much doubt the scale of slavery you mentioned), and it was sort of self-defence at first, but from a certain point it was just conquering foreign lands, colonisation and forced Russification. This is evident to this day, for example in Caucasus region. Without overwhelming military presence those "Russian" republics would have left the federation long time ago. There were no Russians in Siberia and north-East Asia before the colonization.
Thank you for explaining the theory and thanks for the maps and animations. Unbelievable how the relevance of your video increased during the last 4 weeks ...
A big issue with this theory in the modern day; Mackinder couldn't have forseen how rapidly interconnected the rimlands have become with the outer islands. Instead of them being treated as 2 seperate entities like before, in the modern day they are effectively a unified entity. This would tremendously greaten the difficulty of a conquest of the rimlands.
Its the old Sparta vs Athens. Great naval power vs Great land power. In that one the land power won, probably will again if America (naval) tried to fight russia & China (land).
@@James-sk4db with nukes no one would win, but I'd disagree about a conventional conflict. Russia is largely irrelevant and most Chinese people live near the coast, hence why they're becoming more of a Naval power now.
@@jeremiahblake3949 Russia irrelevant? my friend, if there is a big war in Europe tomorrow it would be like thousands of tanks, artillery, shells being produced every month, 25 million mobilized Russians with AK's, almost indefinite resources such as food, oil and so on. Economy, basic needs, they largely can live by themselves and not give a fuck. If this is not enough they have the largest nuclear arsenal. In just plain numeric and strategic point of view, there is no way Russia is irrelevant military power in a potential war of that scale. Don't kid yourself.
What a great channel I've stumbled across. Keep up the good work. I expect your TH-cam channel to become very successful in the near future. Make sure you stick to your formula that works. Don't bend to the desires of your audience because that's what often kills new and growing channels.
Honestly the big flaw in this theory is the dichtomy between geographical contentiousness and separation, the Himalayas are far more of a dividing barrier than most straits are.
the Himalayas is not part of the "Heartland". in fact the argument is it defends the Heartland as it confine the coastal Indian power to the subcontinent.
It sort of vindicates it- no matter which era, it is only the civilisation with the most efficient land transport that dominates it The innumerable steppe hordes dominated until Russia brought roads and forts to secure areas, which is why it took four centuries for them and a few decades for the Huns/Turks/Mongols, but only Russia has stayed in control
it is a thesis that luckily only ever saw any real truth in the Mongolian conquest. Air power, aerospace technology, and nuclear weapons has caught up and surpassed the strategic thesis.
And now the control of certain datacenters that can route information to any part of the world, and route around any breaks or conflict. A nation exists because the people agree it goes. In the information age, physical border are even more blurred.
Did it hold truth with the Mongolians? They simply burned whatever was in their path, & that was this area. They could only hold it momentarily & left no physical legacy.
@@sirmount2636 Europe was largely spared the Mongols due to the habit of their Gur-Khans dying at inopportune moments; requiring all war leaders to return to Karakoram to elect the new Gur-Khan.
@@SportyMabamba actually it was the terrain. Not much room for horse hordes in European forests. Also too wet for their bows. & once the Egyptians slaughtered them, it was over
Even the Mongols don't really give truth to the theory. They were successful, to a degree, and they were from the Heartland, but they were not successful because they were from the Heartland.
I'm cookin rn and this really blew my mind...I've always felt geography was an overlooked aspect of war and conquest, as well as in today's technologically and financially connected world. Great vid!
It's misguided now, but it wasn't then. The Heartland could only have achieved dominance as a German-Russian (that way round) alliance. Germany is now right out of the picture. Russia obsesses about its borders in terms of security from western Europe. All it wants is a buffer and this doesn't include the Baltic States, despite their paranoia, but certainly White Russia and Ukraine (the name itself means "borderland"). There is no Russian desire to expand beyond this or to achieve any sort of imperial world-domination. The same goes for China, which looks to trade with, but has no ambitions to conquer, territories to its west. It is the breaking of Germany which has shafted the heartland theory. Meanwhile, Washington is currently supporting a war in Eastern Europe which it must necessarily see as "Heartland Containment". I would not buy into any "freedom for Ukraine" argument, that's just Christmas Tree decoration. The Heartland doesn't (any more) need containing.
As a world builder I thank you for sharing. I'm currently trying to design a world map that I'll place different nations on. This video will be helpful when I think about coastial areas and transportation.
Also recognize the flaws of this theory, the heartland's principal advantage is that its natural barriers protect it from the world, but this also means its cut off. Even birds have to fly around the Himalayas and nobody ever conquered across the Sahara Desert, they went around it. If your cut off from the rest of the world you will fall behind. Population and money (trade) are power and ocean trade is the easiest/most efficient means of moving goods in any era.
@@jasonreed7522 I was thinking that. the protections can also be a problem. While falling behind is an issue being cut off can also preserve your culture and way of life. While trains do help out the core of the inner parts of a nation I agree ships are king when it comes to transporting goods. That's why so many older large empires were around the Mediterranean sea.
In 1904( Japan-Russia War) Mcinder focused on the potential threat from Russian Empire or Japanese Empire for GB. In 1919,he focused on Leninism and its expansion. In 1943, he focused on Stalinism and its potential expansion(Nazi had been stopped already). In 2018, US is aware of the combined strength of China and Russia(Belt and Road initiative) via new technology.
100 years of British foreign policy was based on this. So its not inconsequential.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +13
You don't understand the theory if you think it's bad. No one realy ever managed to conquer the entire heartland, only country that was even close to it, was Soviet Union and Mongols. But even mongols didn't conquer Poland, and Soviet union didn't conquer Persia. No single power yet, had controlled whole heartland. Also, as it had been said, people were aware of the power of the heartland, so they did everything to prevent it's domination. Yet, Russia still dominates the world's Politics. Also, I would say it is good theory, but incomplete. It doesn't encompass the USA. USA is america's own heartland, and USA dominates the Americas in every way. And it right now, dominates the world. I would say that there are two heartlands on two main continents, and this brings inevitable conflict between them.
Jan Well I don’t buy that you have to control more of heartland than USSR actually was in control of. No. And yes, America as a Continent is a heartland of itself, agree. Conclusion: makes no sense nowadays. At the peak of British Empire it was nonsensical as well. It all depends on technical and militarily given power. Look at the superiority of airforce power over naval power. British Empire had to fall and fell once naval power lost its leading role in armament and flexibility.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +4
@@lowersaxon Well before the fall of the Mongol Empire, they were pretty much controlling the world's trade. That is one point. Another point is the fact that heartland thesis is not absolute - it only implies that controlling the heartland is something very important. Another point - Heartland should realy include most of Persia. Which mongols did controll while Russia didn't. Controlling Persia is important because it is only land route to india from europe. And in the original thesis it does include it indeed. Next point, east europe is key to controlling the heartland. That is because there are only TWO weak spots in the heartland. One is Persia, Second is Eastern Europe. Persia however has the Zagros mountains, and the Tigris-Euphrat rivers, which can stop some invasions. And the terrains there are hot which makes invasions hard endevaour. However, the eastern europe, is different. Unless you attack it during winter, there is virtualy nothing that can stop you until Ural. So any nations till the river Oder, and river Nysa, is in fact an existential threat to any power in the region, unless they are either, neutral, friendly, or under the controll of such power. This is not so, for Persia - Persia is not a threat to power in the north side of Caucasus, because of the Caucasian mountains. Persia can be surely an asset to such power, but if it loses it, it can never become an existential threat to it. So it is correct to assume, that whoever controlls the eastern europe, controlls the power that resides therein - simply because they CAN use threats against it, and force it into submission. Controll, doesn't always mean direct controll. USA, doesn't hold direct controll over everything. But it is still, the power that dictates the world it's will, more or less. And why is that? It is because right now, it controlls the eastern europe, Indirectly thru it's influence. During the cold war, there was a struggle for power between US and USSR. US won it. Good for us, since USSR was bad. But USSR was very close to controlling the world - in fact there were many communist revolutions thruout the world, including latin america, and many countries in Asia. This simply proves how important the eastern europe is.
I just want to clarify something here guys; the theory is not "bad", it is the application/execution of said theory that is almost impossible. What is true is: if some entity find a way to EFFICIENTLY unify the Eurasian heartland, they will have access to a mass of resources that will allow them to conquer the world. (Emphasis here on "Efficiently") The main problem of that theory is the fact that it does not hold water when it come to commerce & economic growth which are dictated by the balance of transport. As Strategy Stuff mentioned at the end, transport by boat is at least an order of magnitude more efficient than anything else. This is why the "heartland" of the North American Continent is so much richer than that of Eurasia. Because it has a lot of navigable rivers flowing toward warm ocean waters which allow for easy and efficient economic activity.
Zbigniew brzinski seems to have simply rehashed this theory in his book the “grand chessboard” ... you can see it’s influence in brzinski and Kissinger’s realpolitik..
This theory is the basis for most other geopolitical theories because of some basic theories it puts out: 1) The struggle between 'land' and 'sea' powers, 2) The geographic 'uniqueness' of the Heartland, and 3) Thinking about strategy at the global level rather than just regional.
The biggest flaw to this is assuming that rail is more efficient than water. Rail $0.11 per ton per mile Barge $0.03 per ton per mile Ocean $0.01 per ton per mile This gives the rim lands an edge. Also the American heart land has natural rivers with minor need for rail protected by the two biggest oceans in the world. Thus the heart land theory may be right but it is located in the center of the USA.
A better approach might be to treat the entire Americas as the heartland. -The entire regions could sustainably house and feed 1 billion people, with the right tech improvements (energy, recycling, water) maybe double that. Has Area lightly smaller than the entire Asian continent. It's more controllable than the pipe dream of trying to control all of Asia. -It's narrow and long giving rise to highly varied climates, ecosystems, ease of land transport, plentiful water and the longest mountain ranges in world. -It's resource dense. The canadian shield is massive and incredibly rich in iron and nickel, some of the largest orogen belts full of copper, Large igneous provinces with PGEs and other rare materials (not as large as siberan LIP but more accessible). -It's highly defendable from every approach due to massive oceans surrounding it. It only needs a strong Navy and airforce (sound familiar?), a strong army isn't mandatory. Technology (OTHR/long range radar and satellites allow information superiority well in advance for any type of threat). Approaches also follow a great circle, which means the entire southern half doesn't need a strong focus on defense infrastructure. -Said oceans tap into the second and third largest market in the world almost direcltly at cost of 0.01 USD per mile ton (these markets being EU and China). It's also freely accessible. To cheaply move goods around the rim with ships (China to Asia) you pass through at least 1 and up to 3 choke points. Elsewise you go over land at a higher price. This is also applicable to internet cables and the movement of information through them. Overland cables are bad for transmitting data because of the cost of setting them up. -It has equatorial access for space launches (and a lot of it), second only to Africa. This improves prospects of putting big things in space. Any nation that dominates the equatorial plane of space (or any spactial domain above out atmosphere) has a more real chance of dominating the world than holding siberia. Space is guranteed to become a trillion dollar industry (or very close) by the end of the century. Because of these factors, imo the USA will always command 20 to 25% of the worlds economy regardless of the change of hands that happen in the 'world island'. It also has better space access than a lot of the "heartland' on the world island.
I would say the best approach is 3 heartlands - one in eastern Europe, one in northern China, and one in the American midwest. Of these, the American one is by far the most powerful, having strong geographic armor, a vast interior river system, a very stable temperate climate, and a comparatively united people. Notice that each of these heartlands keeps producing some of the most powerful nations in the world, with the United States currently at the top. Continents lacking a heartland like region are continuously doomed to be regional powers at most. Africa is generally either dry savanna, desert, or moist tropical rainforest. South America has the Gran Chaco, but this is a tad dry and most importantly very sparsely populated. Australia's southeast corner is a breadbasket but is simply too dry and rugged to realize its full potential. The Pacific islands are either too tropical, too small, or too rugged to have such a region. Thus, the great powers of eastern Europe, China, and North America get to dominate the world. One interesting thing to add is that France and the British isles have low, temperate regions that resemble the heartland, yet are more coastal and smaller in scope. They worked with this by pooling in resources from large naval empires, along with heavy industrialization to make very good use of this. Here they managed to take advantage of cheap water transport, as well as rail, and realized a huge potential for their agricultural lowlands. This required the naval empire however, which when it fell apart greatly weakened the nations. Now only a strong global economy and some soft power over former territories help prop them up.
@@StuffandThings_ I think you are right about your assessment. My words or terms i used are a bit wrong so i i'll have a second go at iterating what i meant so it sounds more reasonable. I would like to firstly address however that i think you underestimate the potential for the reasonably populated agricultural and industrial regions of south Brazil to be their own "pseudo" or secondary pivot within the Americas. Brazil is the 5th largest agricultural producer by value in the world, the 6th most populated and critically this area has the second largest reserves of iron ore in the world right now. That doesn't mean i think it's comparable to the three you mentioned, just that it has the features of one. It's a naturally protected area as well but to a lesser extent. Nothing about the resource potential of the americas is wrong as far as i'm aware. The heartland (or as it's called in the theory, the pivot) of the Americas is definitely the Midwest, although i don't think it's unreasonable to extend its definition as anything east of the Mississippi being the heartland. The new 'world Island' in this case being the entire Americas i was alluding to, and my point was that the Americas or the New World has a lot to offer to anyone who controls it to the same extent the original world island would give. I'd like to add to my original statement that's it's not irrational to think it could fall under the control of a single entity, at present the USA has a very firm grip on it which is why i made my statement in the first place. The Darien gap, the only land barrier between the North and South continents is basically closed by choice. There is no economical or technical reason it isn't opened up, as far as i can tell it's political will and ecological considerations. Leading on from this...... The idea of the original world island falling under a single banner is much more theoretical. The Himalayas shield India, which i think in addition to the slightly more exposed China are two immovable objects on the 'old world island' that the Eastern European heartland or pivot could not move. North Africa and the Middle East also are effectively impassable. The three main deserts of North America are collectively smaller than the Arabian desert, which in turn is much smaller than the Sahara. The US has proven the ability to actually pass its deserts with rail, putting the basis of the world island theory to work within North America, making North America the first real World Island in my opinion. Adding to this, Pax Americana is a thing. The rail lines of Arabia are disjoint by comparison and current attempts to rectify this have fallen by the wayside. Unlike the Darien Gap, this isn't a choice, it's straight up not competitive enough economically and technically it's very difficult. There is much less connecivity between Africa and Asia over land as a result, leading to all trade to basically happen by boat. I think this is the first weakness of the original theory. Africa does not belong in the world island even if it's neatly packed into the Old World landmass. This eliminates significant portion of the land and resources of "whoever controls the world island", which i think is simply Eurasia at this point. I could even go one step further, and say the Indian subcontinents should be excluded because traversal of the Himalayas and other nearby mountain ranges is another major hurdle than isn't encountered in the Americas (to the same extent). About Australia: I know a bit about our perils since i am from there. The big issue is proximity, and by that i mean our most isolated city (perth) and it's port (fremantle) are, in the context of shipping, are days closer to Singpore than any eastern city, meaning things like steel come into {erth then go elsewhere. The breadbasket isn't just restricted to the SE corner, it extends all up the east coast. Inland (but nestled against the great dividing range) we have big plains with grain galore. On the coast (other side of great dividing range) we have dairy, fruit & veggies, fruit, citrus, wine and sugar. Far inland is cattle country. The west coast also has it's own mini bread basket. The issue is that despite all our grain production, we don't produce anough of the other stuff to actually sustain a massive population. Estimates of our ecologically sustainable population put our cap at about 50 million people. Compartively, Brazil is 500 million, the highest of any country. Conclusion/TLDR: The Americas as a whole (North and South) is not the Heartland, my mistake, it's the most reasonable World Island as it's actually unifiable infrastructually in a competivive and technically feasible manner. The Original world island isn't feasible and shouldn't have included Africa. I suspect africa was included because the heartland thesis is the obious statement that all of the Old World is technically stronger/more resourced than the New World, and thus the thesis points to a worse case scenario about Russian domination of Eurasia.
A proper introduction into early 20th century Western strategic thinking, with a care for detail and present relevancy (China's 'One Belt, One Road' policy)! Some aspects come into my mind that could be added *to* further *underline* *why* *this* *concept* *is* *not* *only* *of* *historical* *interest* : ° the distinct *social* context/ *network* *of* *Halford* *MacKinder* , associated to Alfred 'Milner's Kindergarden', the *Royal* *Institute* *of* *International* *Affairs* (a 'think-tank' today labeled as *'Chatham* *House'* with *Round* *Table* *Magazine* as it's outlet) and the 'anglophile' US *Council* *on* *Foreign* *Relations* points to a continuity as these institutions can be interpreted as a means of consolidating 'Anglo-Saxon' supremacy in an upcoming age of increasing 'de-colonization', often by bypassing institutional bureaucracy (Foreign Office, State Department) and public debate (e.g. the failed 'Jameson Raid' in 1895, later critized by conservative historians like Carroll Quigley). MacKinder's work delivered a lasting point of reference for *'trans-atlantic* *identity'* , preparing the co-ordination of security politics (e.g. Philip Kerr as British ambassador to the US and US journalist Walter Lippman advocating for the *'Destroyers* *for* *Bases* *Agreement'/'Lend Lease'* program in 1940) and current efforts of *'westernization'* (e.g. *expansion* *of* *NATO* since the end of the Cold War, the Western policy of *'diffusion* *of* *democracy'* / *regime* *change* ). Contemporary writings like 'The problem of Asia' (1900) by Alfred Thayer Mahan subscribe to a similar idea of a *maritime* *power-bloc* (compare George Orwell's 'Oceania') and had a comparable impact - on close allies as well as on potential antagonists (German Navy)... (for further 'least biased' reading: 'Round Table Movement and Imperial Union' by John Kendle) th-cam.com/video/c0wH6YDfCzg/w-d-xo.html ° the striking example of the *'Baghdad* *railway'* investment project, dominated by German banks (arguably pressured by Berlin) within a struggling, but modernizing Ottoman Empire (1903-1940), arguably a major threat to British security interests at the Suez Canal (shortest sealane to British India) and a valid 'casus belli' th-cam.com/video/LwMFypg_rRc/w-d-xo.html ° George F. Kennan's policy of *'containment'* *of* *the* *Soviet-Union* from 1946 throughout the *Cold* *War* (including *Nixon's* *visit* *in* *'Red* *China'* in 1972) th-cam.com/video/I0oqmmeX4dA/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/N5V9sP_nDCM/w-d-xo.html ° Zbigniew Brzezinski's writings reflect the dominant influence of McKinder (e.g. 'Game Plan: A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the U.S.-Soviet Contest. 1986.', 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. 1997.') ° the unratified *Silk* *Road* *Strategy* *Act* of 1999 with the goal of aligning former Soviet Republics in *Central* *Asia* with US interests th-cam.com/video/p-wL-XIqmhw/w-d-xo.html - which would clash now directly with the current Chinese initiative of infrastructure projects (including the founding of the *'Asian* *Infrastructure* *Investment* *Bank'* - structurally competing with the 'Bretton Woods' US institutions IMF and Worldbank) th-cam.com/video/HnbnjzUv7sM/w-d-xo.html - regions, currently destabilized by 'salafist terrorism' (from the Xinjiang province of China to Alewite ruled Syria) can be recognized as the 'shatter belt' that reflects both strategic vectors in proxy-wars... th-cam.com/video/DHyBJ154W3I/w-d-xo.html www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html th-cam.com/video/fBF_Q8IHz7c/w-d-xo.html I am not aware of another academic field that is capable to put political conflict into a unified perspective on a global scale and long-term, but *'political* *geography'* (combining geographical with historical studies in *inter-disciplinary* research), currently still Mackinder's 'Heartland' concept in particular (despite his 19th century idealization of a 'typical' antagonism between 'land powers', up until the 13th century, and 'sea-powers', from the 16th century onward, in a *spatial* construction - while these *'civilizations'* actually followed another in *time* ).
Thanks for your comment and your recommended videos/readings! Reading Mackinder and his thinking on China certainly made me think of OBOR, though the 'Heartland' part of that initiative seems to be increasingly stymied by Russian efforts. China's Grand Strategy in recent years has been described alternatively as Mahanian, Mackinder-ian, geoeconomic, even Corbettian (in an operational sense). My personal experience with OBOR, however, makes me wonder if China actually has a strategy here at all or is it just something they are improvising in the process of satisfying various official and economic interests...
@Strategy Stuff: My pleasure. "OBOR (...) seems to be (...) stymied by Russian efforts" Do You have something specific in mind? " *OBOR* (...) *makes* *me* *wonder* *if* *China* *actually* *has* *a* *strategy* " I can relate to that sentiment. Although I'm not nearly familiar enough with the country and it's culture, I suspect a tendency to 'throw money' at issues, as with China's coastal 'Special Economic Zones' that were originally conceived - besides gaining foreign currency - to transfer 'high technology' in joint-ventures (following Sun Yat-Sen's motive: modernizing a sovereign China by using Western capital), but end up as some forms of supply chains to Western companies - with the Chinese population as a 'fiercely competitive' market mostly for 'low tech' consumer goods - and with export oriented Chinese companies like Huawei as an exception from the rule. Policy goals like 'life sciences' or a 'space program' sound great in the Five Year Plan (the 12th - the 13th seems to be more reflective: "Building a Moderately Prosperous Society") and may rally younger party members, but from the outside it feels like the 'old guard' of the Long March is missing, who had still observed matters in a slower pace but who were also grounded in lifelong 'grit'. And despite the academic training of the recent 'nomenclatura', the traditional ratio of bureaucrat per citizen remains unfavourable to actual law enforcement. Mere imitation of Western technocracy (e.g. 'collateral debt' under a figment of 'rule of law', e.g. stressing 'intellectual property rights' - rather than good writing...) may put the Chinese ultimately into a similar malady as the Germans: political isolation (lacking even a regional ideological counter to Wilson's '14 Points'), demonization and having nothing left, but 'cannons' (in reference to a remark by the German conservative historian Hans Rothfels when commenting on 19th century German liberals who lamented in their first parliament: "We do have *ideas* , but we lack the *cannons* ...). What 'Chinese characteristics' exactly means to the rest of the world can't remain 'exotic' - as 'land powers' don't get to live in 'splendid isolation'... th-cam.com/video/fpT2RZilN38/w-d-xo.html
@@@typen3k0 *Obviously* You can't follow an argument, or make a point by presenting facts. Within this century someone will 'laugh out loud' about a population that failed to muster more effort than mere trolling.
This is the first I've heard about this theory, and seeing the difference between the Rimlands and the Heartland really brings home the importance of naval power. Since 1492, the most powerful countries have been either the most able to use empire to extract wealth, or in recent times trade to produce wealth. That the USSR controlled the Heartland for so long but still fell apart clearly shows that being excluded from the international network causes you to lag behind. Being generous to McKinder, I would agree that if a major Rimland power conquered the Heartland (or vice versa) they would be in a strong position to then conquer the other rimlands. But this is just the point, the Heartland is not the prize, the World Island is. And now we come to the issue, because everytime a Rimland power has threatened to capture the Heartland, the other powers have rallied to stop them. The 1st French Republic, The Third Reich, and the USSR have all tried to combine the naval empire/trade of the Rimland with the vast expanses of the Heartland and been met with enormous hostility. Perhaps one day, a federalised and united Europe will bring a by then weakened Russia into the fold and from there start dominating East Asia, India, Persia, the Middle East, and Africa. But one has to ask, will the "New World" let that happen? I doubt it.
Assuming the "New World" still had good relations with Europe at that point then the alliance would glady get stronger and have more trading partners. Besides technology is rapidly making this theory obsolete. Nuclear submarines can surface in the melting arctic right theough the ice and launch ICBMs to every city in the heartland at once. ICBMs can be launched from Texas and still hit anywhere in the heartland, mountains barely mean anything in the face of modern warfare at its worst. Even for a conventional war airplanes can bypass most of these defenses. (Except the Himalayas but rockets can ignore those) Now the key to geopolitics is air/naval/space power, land armies mean nothing when your enemy's can launch thousands of missils each capable of leveling an entire metropolitan area. (And therefore your army) This is not a change for the better, MAD is terrible but as long as battles are kept to courts and the UN we are safe. (And Russias invasion of the Ukraine is showing how ineffective land armies can be when facing a slightly technologically superior enemy)
The "New World" wouldn't care unless the "Old World" started acting aggressively for their interests to the point that they look more akin to imperialists than interventionists. The modern era cannot support blatant power grabs anymore like Russia has committed itself to doing. That being said, the "New World" likely won't have to worry about that for a long time. The bitterness Russia's invasion has evoked in Ukraine as well as the genuine and justified fear for security the EU's east feels from this aggression will be felt for a long time. And the Russian mentality would need a serious revolution to prevent this from happening again.
@@stephenjenkins7971 i think your right in that the "New World" wont have to worry for a long time/basically forever. Eurasia has a lot of unique cultures that don't all get along so the probability of any empire forming and conquering both the heartland and a major rimland region (most likely Europe or China based on geography) is very low in the near future. Add on the current rate if technological advancement of our species as a whole and i would bet we become fully fledged space fairers with asteroid mining and space navies / space based weapons long before the conditions arise for the World island to fall under a single power capable of threatening everyone else. (The resources of the world island pale in comparison to the asteroid belt where a single rock (Eros) contains enough gold to destroy the worlds economy from inflation several times over)
I really liked this theory. This would be an alternative explanation of why US fears a Russian-China alliance, as at the same time wants bad relations between India and China. The west of the Heartland is where US is putting all nuclear missiles (nuclear shield).
I don’t believe that the US “fears a Russian-China alliance”. China depends too much on global trade; especially, trade/exports tot he US’s consumerism. China has too much to lose economically to have such an alliance with Russia.
problem of the "heartland" is, that it is virtualy useless, it is low density populated, has only some resources, but the problem of bad ability to move and bad temperatures for anythign besides server farms
It is only poorly populated due to its lack of economic exploitation People go where they go for prosperity- if the main issue of efficiently transporting people and tools to the areas of abundance was possible, Siberia would be the new United States, economically, after a time Siberia is richer than the US, it just doesn't have the seemingly endless rivers and is much larger in terms of area Canada is in a similar position to Siberia, tho far less richer in terms of resources, in supply and diversity, as is Australia- just replace the permafrost with endless scorching desert Australia could have the population and economy of the US and dominate SE Asia, so long as they solve the issue of water and transport- that's the biggest hurdle to fulfilling Mackinder's requirements
@@lewisyeadon4046 well low population is there for a reason humans settle on coast lines and rivers , the heartland lacks this, the peninsulars have it in abundance
Modern tech has made this theory obsolete, nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers, nuclear submarines, and Balistic missiles have rendered all of the advantages of the "heartland" obsolete. It also has the flaw of, if your defense is that nobody can cross the Himalayas to reach you how can you possibly influence anyone on the other side of those same barriers. Basically you are trapped by your protection and maintaining rule across the barrier is highly problematic. (To say nothing of Africa's problematic geography for a purely land power to dominate) In contrast a naval power like the UK or USA is protected by the sea but through their strong navy can easily spread influence across the sea. (The entire basis of the colonial era's power structure and it continues to benefit the USA today)
As a Swede, I'm very confused about being included in the "heartlands". For practical purposes, Sweden and Norway are basically an island (except that one bridge to Copenhagen)
If Russia can deny access to the Baltic (or even parts of it), Sweden has historically been highly vulnerable to Russian pressure. That’s why the U.K. insisted on demilitarisation of the Aland islands in the 1850s. A similar situation with Germany in both World wars.
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 Well it's certainly brain stimulation for me! Plus the video's been getting tons of traction lately. It helps that it's quite easy to reply to (new) comments on the TH-cam Studio mobile app.
Really helpful for my Geopolitics class, I wish you could also examinate other authors, such as - Mahan, Haushofer, Ratzel, Golbery do Couto e Silva and Parag Khanna... Informative and very precise. I would recommend.
I think the real problem with basing a theory on geographical characteristics is that advancing technology tends to neutralize static defenses. For example, a wide river was a truly formidable barrier during Mackinder's time, but the use of hovercraft on a large scale now makes them more like highways than barriers. Otherwise I think Mackinder is dead on in his understanding of the utility of natural defensive formations. These are barriers to your own forces as well as the enemy's so while they may help you defend, they in no way help you to attack, and in fact limit your own options in that regard. Thus his focus on Eastern Europe as the only truly viable way in (or out). This remained the strategy NATO used during the Cold War and nearly all of it's military exercises in Europe focused on stopping Warsaw Pact forces from moving through the Fulda Gap into western Europe. The fact that rimland and outer island powers can generate more wealth from well-developed sea trade than a landlocked power also undermines many of his assumptions but does not invalidate them. What we end up with is actually a fairly accurate explanation for why the Soviet Union ultimately fell. Good stuff!
Mackinder didn't know a lot - for example the wealth of Permian Oil and gas in the USSR, however I think that the activities of the USSR and its successor suggest that the Russians believe in his ideas. For example in the massacre of 20,000 officer class Poles in the Katyn forest in 1940. You may have noted that Putin wants Alaska back too. Loony.
The same theory was applied to Quebec and Canada before it fell to Wolfe A natural fortress, historically fortresses and geography rarely stop anyone It just takes a little longer
This theory explains the importance of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) which most western geopolitical thinkers tend to dismiss as insignificant.
If you wouldn't have added critique of the thesis, I doubt that there would have been as much comments critically assessing the theory (which of course it should be). Good job on making this scientific!
I think a lot of these ideas are valid, but it strikes me that these kinds of theorists have no conception of sociology or political science. In order for a "Heartland" power to dominate the "World Island", they'd have to develop a culture and political system that would be far more amenable to this goal than either those of Russia, Germany, China, or any other contender. They'd have to create a perfect society that others would wish to join. A Russo-Sino-Afro-Germanic, democratic welfare state, perhaps? And at that point, why would they be a threat? If this new, wonderful Russo-Sino-Afro-Germanic society could stably contain all of the World Island, why would the rest of the world NOT be on its good side? Or even join it? Why would such a society even be thought morally capable of attacking outside nations? My point is, for a "World Island" polity to be stable would require decades, if not centuries, of cultural and political progress. You can't just invade Russia or Germany or China or Africa like it's a game of Risk. Sure, you can invade these places just to cleanse them of people, like Hitler's Lebensraum idea, but the major reason holding land is militarily important is for the manpower and economic output, both of which are killed off alongside the local populaces. And as we've seen, killing off millions of people tends to get you right on track for the Untergang, as half your country wants to assassinate you and the other half is busy fighting off your irate neighbours. Great video, by the way. I just get frustrated when the world seems to be run by paranoid, ignorant lunatics masquerading as foreign policy sages. There's a lot of them in the modern era. They should all go to hell.
Too true. Any "heartland" power that attempts to achieve such a thing would find their already limited manpower rapidly decreasing as the native populations express their discontent at being ruled over. And, like you say, short of either going back to where they come from or committing a genocide that would defeat the entire purpose of ruling over Europe and Asia in the first place, there is no way for any "heartland" invader to have lasting peace.
Exactly. Why aren't the steppes' areas world leaders of anything? The theory assumes that geography is destiny, when it so obviously has not been historically. With the industrial revolution, and the power and wealth this unleashed, geographical centrality is not a sign of anything much. The theory collapses economy, culture, technology and politics into geography, which I believe are more important indicators of political power, soft power included.
5:07 very interesting bc the „heartland“ i would say are mostly undiscovered or at least unused acres of Land. In the winter its brutal and in the Summer you have so many insects you really cant enjoy it at all. Whereas the „Rimlands“ are the most important geographical locations. You have the middle east where ancient cultures rose and i think i dont have to say anything about Europe and the costal cities of asia, all developed pretty good
A slight correction I would add is that there has been an instance where the heartland came close to dominating the world island; The Soviet-Polish war of 1919 was won by the Poles by the barest skin of their teeth. The purpose of this conflict for the Soviets was twofold: firstly, to reclaim territory ceded in the Brest-Livotsk treaty which was now considered defunct as the German empire had recently been liquidated. Secondly, to establish a land border with Germany through which to assist the struggle of the German revolutionaries through the clandestine transport of material aid and manpower, as well as the capability to leap across the border as soon as a state of revolution had been achieved. Had Tukhachevsky not been turned back at the gates of Warsaw then there's a strong possibility revolution would have come to Germany, resulting in a scenario where eastern Europe would be united under the Communist heartlands, creating a scenario where the highly industrialised Germany would directly assist in the mechanisation of the heartlands.
Very interesting that the Black Sea is basically the only region where ships can genuinely and easily access the Heartland in most conditions. Thus making the Bosphorus (and Dardanelles), along with Crimea, ridiculously valuable assets. I think many world powers have these two regions in mind, with NATO accepting Turkey despite its feuds with other NATO members and a somewhat unsavory regime, and Russia pursuing cruel and aggressive foreign policy to keep nations along the Black Sea in its grasp. With a thawing heartland, increasing effectiveness of land transport, and a world increasingly desperate for resources, I think we may see conflicts in the Black Sea region intensify greatly over the coming decades.
I kinda have a few disagreements with this: 1. Shipping is, and, unless something crazy happens, will always be the cheapest mode of transportation. Ships can be bigger, and don't need constant maintenance of the sea - you don't have to build or repair the sea, you can't blow up the sea and stop maritime traffic for a while. The only way to stop ships is to shoot at them. Also, the reliance of ships on ports is negligible, and the only places where a Heartland power could block the shipping lanes right now is the Suez, which will only slow ships down. 2. What ships lose to trains in speed, airplanes can get back. Planes are faster, their routes are shorter, and they are also quite difficult to stop. A plane-based military force, such as the US Marines, is perfect for rapid response to any Heartland power aggression and for stalling until the transport ships arrive in force and carry over an army for cheaper than the Heartland power could. 3. Mackinder seems to not have anticipated the strength of the aircraft carrier and of the missile-based weaponry. A fleet of submarines, missile destroyers and aircraft carriers, such as the American one, can defeat the land-based airforce of a Heartland power and establish control over a beachhead.
I don't think I fully understand why MacKinder thought the geographical pivot lies on the Eurasian plains. For one, the region has never been prosperous. Secondly, it's never been densely populated because why would anyone want to settle on this vast steppe wasteland? Thirdly, the power that has occupied the region for a long time - Russia - is still struggling to sustainably inustrialise. The rimlands are much more prosperous and also more successful militarily. I think this simple fact negates MacKinder's theory. Please feel free to elaborate!
actionmacaque: The Heartland is important not because of its wealth, but because of its position. Mackinder argued that the Heartland's central position and natural defensive barriers made it a easy position from which to concentrate, launch attacks in any direction, and be without fear of significant enemy retaliation. As examples, he cites the success of Hland empires like Mongolia, Timur etc. In overpowering the richer Rimlands. Inevitably he has to address the Q of why R Empires were dominant in the 19thC. McK argues this is because from the 16thC onwards, the superior mobility of sea power allowed Rland powers to do what Hland empires could do previously: concentrate forces quickly, strike w/max force where Hland forces spread thin, and thus be free from Hland invasion. McK argues that rail can deliver the same, if not better, mobility for Hland powers as it did for Rland powers. Thus the situation would revert to the Hland situation with some geopolitical descendant of the Mongols taking over Eurasia. So to answer your Qs, 1 and 2 are irrelevant for McK: Yes the Rlands are richer but richer can only go so far in readdressing geopolitical disadvantages (this is not unique to McK: watch my Mughal video to see how Jos Gommans argues that the side of medieval India that produced lower agricultural yields actually made it the more militarily dominant side). Q 3 is true in that Russia never managed to create the sort of rail network that I think McKs theory theorized, BUT that doesn't discount a future power doing so. The key, fatal, criticism of McKs theory is his assertion that rail mobility can be an equivalent to sea mobility, which to date is not true - direct rail may be faster than sea but it is still far less efficient at carrying goods - important when considering logistics etc. If rail is not an equal to sea mobility then McKs assertions about the potency of the Hland cannot come to pass.
Gengis Khan? In a modern sense an eastward expansion to the natural border of the Rhine and Alps. A region of consistent conflict. The modern struggle of East v West.
@ Strategy Stuff: Underlining the long standing historical experience of nomadic invasions into ancient regions of civilization can come to mind, but that doesn't reflect the troubled attitude of Anglo-Saxon politicians or German landed gentry (both export oriented, rather reactionary and quite slavophobic) when it came to assess the economic trajectory of a modernizing Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Mackinder argues in 1904 *explicitly* (after stressing fundamental cultural differences due to specific modes of production): "Perhaps the change of greatest intrinsic importance which took place in Europe in the last century was the southward migration of the Russian peasants, so that, whereas agricultural settlements formerly ended at the forest boundary, the center of population in all European Russia now lies to south of that boundary, in the midst of the wheat-fields which have replaced the more western steppes. *Odessa* *has* here *risen* *to* *importance* *with* *the* *rapidity* *of* *an* *American* *city* ." All of that is reflected in the German creation of the *'Ukrainian* *State'* in 1918 (in return for foodstuff) - and from the Russian perspective also in the current, urban *'Euromaidan'* , drawing the former Soviet Republic into the Western sphere of influence. While Stalin managed to enforce the construction of a heavy industry, capable of resisting a German invasion and dominating Eastern Europe and East Asia (Korea, Vietnam) for decades, the Russian Federation still can't outproduce the state of Texas - but that is after two global wars that were major setbacks to Russian demographics (about 20 million dead in WW II - like Germany Russia always lacked the capital to further industrialize while Britain had built up it's capital by trade during the colonization of America and India). The other point, Mackinder stresses, refers to a possibility of cordial relationships between a heartland power and a neighboring industrial state with the technology to challenge Western sea-power (as the 19th century icon of Western supremacy and culture) - which shows that the specific nationality of a heartland power is interchangeable: "Were the Chinese, for instance, organized by the Japanese to overthrow the Russian empire and to conquer its territory, they might constitute the yellow peril to the world's freedom *just* *because* *they* *would* *add* an *oceanic* *frontage* *to* *the* *resources* *of* *the* great *continent* , an advantage as yet denied to the Russian tenant of the pivot region." Which explains the propagandistic value of the *Molotov-Ribbentrop* *Pact* of 1939 when the Soviet-Union supported an anti-Western, belligerent Nazi-Germany with a constant supply of oil in return for German 'state of the art' cruiser technology. (compare the heated debate on the *'Nord* *Stream'* gas pipeline, directly connecting a recently unified, booming Germany and a diplomatically isolated Russia) th-cam.com/video/xFmltgyPLpE/w-d-xo.html A crucial factor that is not explicitly stated in calculations on transport cost is the utter importance of the Suez Canal - it's ancient forerunner, the 'Canal of the Pharaohs' was also of interest to Alexander the Great. If the Canal would be rendered unusable by some means, the role of some form of railway (e.g. 'transrapid') along the ancient *Silk* *Road* could increase again (a revival of the 15th century situation) - while maritime trade would be fragmented into trans-atlantic and pacific shipping (although connected by the US controlled Panama Canal). As the failed maintenance of the Salekhard-Igarka Railway along the northern polar circle (1947-1953) has shown the difficulty of traversing extreme wilderness by rail, a northern sea-route, bypassing a blocked Suez Canal would have to depend on significant global warming in order to be profitable. But such a scenario would shift the complete equation in the favour of sea-powers due to maritime accessibility (also potentially benefit the trade and modernization of a formerly 'land-locked', 'traditionalist' Russia). brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/140636/Chernova.pdf?sequence *Grand* *strategy* - often bound to some sweeping *'philosophy* *of* *history'* - is not meant to be a manual for daily policy, but provides a lasting orientation across generations, clearing some confusion of naturally conflicting interests (e.g. economic policies towards an 'agrarian state' or 'industrial state'). On the other hand, if a national strategy is too idealized - like the naval arms program of the 'continental' German Empire, expecting further industrialization and hoping to exploit the Great Game between the British Empire and the Russian Empire (thereby imitating the classical English, 'insular' 'balance of power' strategy), the rather average leadership will become confused and will ultimately be reduced to mere reacting to global events - as during the summer of 1914 when the German fleet was still years from completion and the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 had just reversed the trend of colonial expansion within international affairs. th-cam.com/video/WY-kcPQRpHc/w-d-xo.html
Not the 'right' person, but Alexandre Dugin has elaborated on this theory in relation to contemporary Russia. See his Foundations of Geopolitics. It has been quite influential among Russian elites and explains much of their current behaviour, e.g. invasion of Ukraine.
It is not a good strategy thesis. It is more of academic exercise than something to consider seriously. The main issue is that it relies on an unicorn nation being able to conquer the entire world. In human history were never was such a nation which would make this theses actually realistic. Thus, it is more of a thought experiment than anything else. Then there are details. Why Outer islands are assumed to be inferior in resources? USA, Australia, rest of Americas. That is half of the world right there. Why does it mean an automatic loss? Transporting vast armies through an ocean for globe conquest is completely infeasible. Professor just had a brain fart and did not put any thought to considerations which would self-debunk its theory. How conquering translates directly to more resources? It is not Hearts of Iron, but this theory considers world to function just in a same way. A conqueror has to manage conquered lands. People will resist. People will not cooperate. It is an exception when a conquered nation becomes more productive than prior to the war. The more aggressor state expands, the less efficient it becomes. There is also no serious consideration of logistical transportation. Moving through the land is made trivial in this thesis. Attacking through the sea is trivial. That is just so incorrect and laughable. It is not even right on a smaller scale. Europe is made of flat terrain, but no power had ever came to dominate the region completely in its history.
5:10 Mackinder draws a map which excludes Britain & Ireland out of the "Rimlands", then goes on to describe a Rimland politics (basically, "seapower") which was defined by Britain almost singlehandedly (the "Columban Age").
At one point the heartland thesis was put to the test. The Soviet Union and Communist China in through they’re cooperation were this power. And yet it still failed to the West. I thinks there’s a lot of factors that make the comparison not perfect. But I think it just shows geography isn’t everything
or the theory was not sound, its basic premiss (that rail would become cheaper than water transport) did not materialise in the cold war, and has yet to even now. untill rail (or some other land transport) becomes cheaper than water geography will favour rimlanders.
This theory is absolutely insane and even if you view it contemporarily, its pretty ludicrous. In the early 1900s new resource deposits and methods of extraction were being found like wildfire. The oil deposits of the Middle East werent tappable until well into the 1940s, but have since become the largest deposits on Earth, and the same is true for a myriad of other natural resources, though oil is indisputably the king. Another problem is that geographically, the insulation of terrain works against the “Heartland”. The US has been able to dominate precisely because of its oceans; it is completely open to global trade via access to the Atlantic and Pacific, giving it the ability to project power and export goods from a continent while also preserving its security with as little as a strong navy. The theory is kind of a product of its time and the outlook people had about resources and power, and the exclusion of the developing world in favor of analyzing the untapped resources in Russia has completely bit this theory in the ass.
Right or wrong, it really makes you question why every single power in human history attempted to move into those specific spots at any given time. I know it sounds like the whole globe, but even most prominent examples such as Germany, France, Teutonic order... many attempted etc.
Russia dropped the ball. Doesn't matter how fertile your land and how wealthy your minerals and oil, if your government is corrupt and unwilling to grow the pie, your nation fails. Russia could have 300-400 million people with high per capita GDP. But communism brought 70 years of failure. Post USSR we have 30 years of stealing the pie, where the rich kept everything and left the poor only vodka and misery. TLDR, doesn't matter how good your military strategy is if your economics sucks.
It is exactly a century since Halford Mackinder propounded his famous thesis -"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world." The whole of Eastern (half of) Europe is Russia - from Kanin's Nos on White Sea to tongue of Arabat on Black Sea. And what is the population proportionately? The chief flaw in his thesis was (is) that he didn't consider Population is a potent factor too. It is as if Population isn't a geographical factor as per him - that too, soon after WW I. Untrammeled application of his thesis leads to weird results. In fact the (immediate) Rimlands, liberally endowed with populations, projected far more power than the thesis suggests - either by the White people or the Yellow people now. Japan defeated Russia in 1905 decisively in a naval battle, simply because the heartland overreached itself, in starting a battle. Are Rimlands interested in the Heartland? The peripheral Rimlands if ever, are not interested in the Heartland really, because much of it is inhospitable with climatic extremes, (agriculturally) unproductive and hard to conquer as proved by Napoleon & Hitler - the two great conquerors in modern times. Under attack, the very vastness of Heartland (coupled with harsh climate) was its insurance from foreign attacks. A conqueror (of land) needs to hold the land for all time after invading it - not possible with the Heartland (Russia). On the contrary any forays into adjacent Rimlands by the Heartland were largely unsuccessful. Heartland also suffers from a severe disadvantage like no other big country - that of irrelevance as a Maritime power. Now Russia (it has been always so even from Czar regime & USSR times) is the most maritime-disadvantaged country, with the longest coast-line ! The advantage rests always with Maritime countries as 71% land is (world) Ocean that sets the template for climates on land, not often appreciated by Geographers. The whole land area put together is a little above 29%, while one of the three Oceans - the 'Pacific' at 35% surface area - is bigger than all the land area put together. The 10 biggest countries possessing half the land surface of the Earth, mostly are big maritime countries except the two Heartland countries of them - Russia (the largest) & the land locked Kazakhstan. In fact most in the West, can't imagine the sizes of lands except by their populations. Only advantage that the Heartland offers to humanity is its vast land to house the people from overpopulated lands. It is why Hitler attacked USSR, eyeing its vast territory for his burgeoning German people ('Lebensraum') and failed (predictably) for want of matching resources to win the War. It is so because of the sparseness that kept it underdeveloped (Russia is 130 times the size of Bangladesh, but has lesser population than it). This might yet come true in future, by a gradual & peaceful process.
Not related to the video, your goodbyes at the end of your video being short and to the point and not asking for subscribers are one of the reasons I subscribed.
He who owns the Sealanes, controls TRADE. and he who controls Trade, controls the flow of MONEY. This is why landlocked countries are poorer than sea/coastal nations. The world Island is a v v v v v POOR place.
@@sulphuric_glue4468 Switzerland is very close to Italy who is Mediterranean country, it has the Rhine to transport stuff from Holland and Northern Sea, it is connected with France and Atlantic. So Switzerland is connected with 3 seas.
Wow, the explanatory power of this model is considerable. So much history makes sense from this model. Look at not only the Mongol & Turkish ascendancies but also the Huns as well. Repeated waves of aggression against the more developed rim nations, yet those central empires soon collapse. it is quite obvious that George Orwell was familiar w/ this model & used it create his dystopian fantasy.
What is up with people arguing whether this theory is "right" or "wrong?" The world cannot be defined so simply. There are layers and nuances and perspectives. Go study some philosophy and try to argue whether Kant or Hume is "right." Good luck with that.
Isn't the whole point of argument and theory to try and say if an idea is right or wrong? We have to take some kind of action inevitably, even inaction, so it makes that it would first be informed by thought. If the theory holds water, it has implications for foreign policy and how we evaluate nations. Philosophy is all about argument, all about saying what is right or wrong. The debate may never end, sure, but if one takes a philosophy to be of sound argument and it has implications for how one acts, then one should follow it, no? And not reaching a conclusion on its soundness and implications means that they cannot inform action. I agree that it's not so easy, but to me that's only more motivation to argue thoughtfully.
So could we see the propagation of the extremely inefficient automobile as the main form of land transportation as a major endeavor of the rim lands in an attempt to hold onto power ?
What is your opinion on the new explorations of the American Heartland Ideas, as well as the proposed regions being more located towards India? To me, with the introduction of high speed aircraft, this does seem like a good recharacterisation.
I’ve not delved deep into US Heartland theory, but a cursory glance seems to indicate that it’s a sound theory, if not necessarily one that follows Ms thinking. Ms theory is more than just “secure, self contained landmass”, the advantages of which were already obvious in the 19C. One of Ms key assumptions was that land transport would eventually achieve comparable efficiencies with sea transport, in which case the central position of Heart to the Rim would give the H power the ability to invade and fortify R before any R or American power could intervene. It’s the reason why M saw RUS as having more potential than US, despite the latters demonstrable economic might by 1900s. So far M had been wrong in his land tech assumption, but it’s a core part of his theory and without it Hland theory is pretty banal. As for India or any modern applications of Hland theory, I will say that the advent of intercontinental missiles + preference for specialised/non-military solutions instead of large armies have considerably negated the security benefits that geography can bring. So you’re not getting the “cost efficiencies” that M once saw the Hland theory having, which means it’s back to seeing who has more resources. India probably has those resources but i think there are better ways to analyze its potential than Hland theory.
@@StrategyStuff Absolutely, Mostly been looking at Ms theory due to a lot of others use of it while analyzing the region. The idea of the US Heartland also fails in acknowledging the idea of vulnerabilities, making it incomplete at best. To be honest, I do see Spykmans work as being the most applicable to India and the region in general.
Also the entire idea of geographic defense is quickly becoming obsolete due to technology. Carriers can deploy aircraft from any point on the sea. Subs can appear anywhere without warning. Balistic missiles / ICBMs take a slight detour through space to land litterally anywhere with their nuclear payload. (These are often places on those above mentioned nuclear submarines) Modern aircraft can fly refuel mid flight and missions have been flown from the mainland USA to the middle east and back. Not to mention the absolute destruction a satellite with actual weapons could do. (These are currently banned by international treaty but any space power like the USA could feasibly make one quickly, not that we don't already have the power to wipe humanity off the earth several times over) And from a soft power standpoint, water is simply the most efficient means of transport and air the fastest, land based transportation just doesn't keep up for long distance trips of say 4hrs of highway driving or more.
@@jasonreed7522 carriers can not in fact deploy any of their aircraft deep into Eurasia. Why do people forget that things take time to travel. And the longer any object is traveling. Means that they are more prone to being detected and stopped. The US can not actually go anywhere near Russian or Chinese lands, because US relies heavily on naval and air superiority, which they won't have if they ever tried to attack China or Russia, so the US never will attempt to do that outside of Eastern Europe [cough ukraine cough]. In fact the US will quickly lose their naval and air dominance and become a sitting duck while being prodded from every single direction except from Canada. As the midwest/central plains region is the heartland of the America's. But the American world-island is vastly inferior to the Eurasia world-island. And the only reason the heartlands are poor and impoverished is primarily because the rimlands are so rich in comparison. Global free trade and markets has only recently vastly enriched the rimlands. Before then, they were honestly the same. But it's only a matter of time before the heartland nations catch up.
@@sjwoo13 The heart land nations are eastern Europe, they will never catch up also " The US can not actually go anywhere near Russian or Chinese lands" they already do this all the time, if the US goes to war with china, we will have japan, vietnam,korea,india etc to use as leaping off points, for russia we will have europe.
To all smartasses who think this thesis is wrong, it's not. No power ever controlled whole of the hearlands, only two were close, and that was Mongols and USSR. And Mongols collapsed due to infighting, while USSR was stopped by combined forces of the west. Plus it's not a given that the heartland controller will conquer the world, it's only the possibility. Also, I would add, that America has it's own heartland, and it already dominates the world. It is a country, called USA.
Yeah I plan on doing all the major geopolitical names at some point. I’m currently doing Eurasianism + Dugin at the moment but expect Spykman (and perhaps similar Atlanticists) in this channels future.
Maybe it isn't an accident that throughout history, no power had ever been able to assert power over all of Eurasia. Even in North America, a much smaller continent, there's a huge political divide between the coasts and the center at present (both in the US and Canada)--and that's without any ethnic or linguistic divisions. The same thing would be bound to happen on a much larger scale in Eurasia. So it's not surprising that nobody has ever been able to control the whole continent.
The Achilles heel of this thesis is twofold: a vast territory doesn’t convert into vast industrial capacity, a large population, or high capital per capita does. Neither of which the “mainland” has ever had. And indeed even if say Germany or China were to conquere these wastes. In which way would that make these countries stronger? (Aside from potentially acquiring raw material) instead it would extend their borders until securing them with very little additional population would be almost impossible. Secondly it is the inferiority of inland communication and transport to naval shipment that leads to a persisting competitive disadvantage.
All in all I don’t really see why this theory should introduce any insight in how to prevent international conflict or how to curb ambition, not even who to look out for.
In my opinion free roaming of the seas and how to enable that is key to understanding the power balance on our globe. And yes denying this free roaming to mostly land locked countries like Russia can be advantageous if one sees the landlocked power as a rival. Put according to this theory one should look out for whomever would rule the heartland whilst in history and in present day politics it were and are always populous and rather naval oriented empires that rule.
Yes, I don't think Mackinder's theory has borne out in practice thanks to the underestimation of the naval advantage in shipping as you mention. BUT I disagree with your first interpretation. *Mackinder DOES NOT say that the Heartland is/can be the more populous/resource-based region* . What he is saying is that the Heartland's geographic characteristics allow a Heartland power to overcome Rimland resource/numerical superiority:
A) During the 'Naval' Columbian Period 1500-1900, Mackinder argues that the Rimlanders were successful NOT JUST because of their resource superiority BUT because of their ability to concentrate those resources thanks to naval mobility. BUT since naval assets CANNOT access the Heartland, Rimland powers find it very difficult to bring superior numbers to bear when invading Heartland powers. Essentially versus the Heartlanders, Rimlanders can only play defense NOT offense.
B) Geographically, Mackinder sees the Heartland in the central position, which brings with it the advantages of interior lines etc. Using interior rail lines (of course M here assumes that rail can be equivalent to naval), a smaller Heartland power can concentrate on larger but more-difficult-to-coordinate Rimland powers and destroy them one by one. So again the issue of resources is negated.
C) Left unsaid BUT very likely implied is the racial idea that man-for-man, hardy Heartland steppe folk are better soldiers than decadent Rimland folk and so the numerical problem is again overcome.
I'm not picking on you specifically (the Caps are just for emphasis): I think most people do read Mackinder's theory as him endorsing that a Heartland Power as better resource/manpower endowed than Rimlands. This is not the case - *Mackinder's argument is that the Heartland's geography gives better power projection per unit of resource* than Rimlands, which is why one of his prescriptions for resisting the HL is essentially for everybody else to gang up on it.
Thanks for the clarification.
The advantages of heartland rule are probably best articulated by Russia's colonization of Asia. Defense in depth, strategic space to withdraw in the event of a calamitous war, and access to raw materials seem to be the primary drivers here. Holding the heartland assures that no land power will rise to threaten Moscow from the east, at least overland. At the same time, air and perhaps space technology minimize many of the traditional advantages of holding large tracks of flat land.
in fact, much of CHINA is wasteland which does nothing for the wealth of China, other than being an impregnable barrier for which no one ever wants to pass through. They are the Himalayan mountains, the gobi desert and the inner highlands.
@@SwampGas703 your point is the reason why throughout Russian history, leadership sacrifices land for blood, the common Russian "Scorched Earth" policy. Overall considering technology now, this is the reason why we have nuclear weapons.
In case you were wondering, Makinder's Heartland/Rimland theses were the basis for Eurasia and Oceania in George Orwell's 1984.
I'm pretty sure he just took the USSR, China, and the Western Allies
@@appa609 Mackinder calls the british isles a "moated aerodrome" while in 1984 the british isles are called "Airstrip One". To me that is more than a coincidence. As-well one could probably nitpick other pieces of certain Mackinder terminology used in Orwell's writing. The two were British authors and learned men in the same era after all.
@@cooter1866 Difference between Orwell and Mackinder is
Mackinder wrote Versailes treaty and was one of the creators of NATO pact.
Eric Blair quite the Nostradamus of his time...
I can't unsee it now, how did I miss that
Mackinder thought that land transport would eventually become as cheap as sea or water transport which influenced his ideas greatly
Light rail pretty much got us there
A train can haul 1 ton of cargo 1000 miles on 1 gallon of diesel.
@@DanielJoyce But it can't turn.
@@Zorro9129 it can. It can change railways.
@@netyimeni169 I mean it's stuck on a prebuilt route and can't go anywhere that's water like a ship can or anywhere on land like a truck. It's _usually_ not a problem with logistics, but it's why armored trains were a dead end.
This theory presupposes the existence of an unicorn: a country that can at the same time use the geographical advantages of the Heartland, while at the same time avoid the geographical disadvantages of the Heartland. As these are extremely closely related, I don't think it's possible.
I believe the railroad part diminished the impact of the terrain on the movement of the heartland's soldiers,but the point still stands.
Hence the need for the dominant state to be from the rim land. That way they have sufficient naval and population capacity to overcome the shortfalls of that particular regions land.
The unicorn is China.
@@thelovertunisia not anymore. The one child policy and imminent demographic collapse, polluting all their water and needing to import massive amounts of food, not having enough energy so needing to import that, and not having the ability to take Taiwan/challenge the US openly have rendered China screwed
@@overdose8329 it never was, we just didn't realise it untill recently
I get the feeling that Mackinder went his whole life without ever trying to lift a canoe over his head: he would have realized that no amount of technology will ever change the fact that moving stuff over land is much, much harder than moving it the same distance afloat. Ironic for a Brit.
@@futurei0oo you did see the efficiencies on screen, boats are still twice as efficient as rail. (Maybe maglevs would work but they are also very prower hungry)
Also a cornerstone of this theory is that the frozen arctic protects Russia's northern coastline, which is now invalid for 2 reasons.
1. Global warming, its litterally melting and becoming more accessible, just look at satellite data of artic sea ice, only the Canadian archipelago holds onto year round ice. (This is a bad thing)
2. Nuclear submarine missle boats often referred to as "boomers". They can surface through ice if needed and launch missiles with range to easily reach most if the "heartland".
The theories favoring naval dominance will always be more accurate. And now with space tech only treaties and MAD prevent space based weapons from being implimented and those will bypass all of earths geography. Currently "He who rules space rules the world" but considering how old the "heartland" theory is i will cut it some slack because these technologies weren't even concieved of then, let alone proven.
@@jasonreed7522 Climate Change is a hoax.
@@jadapinkett1656 i have witnessed the weather of my home town shift from harsh winter in December to just icestorms to my first ever green Christmas.
Satellite images of the artic show the entire half of the ice cap on the Russian side of the sea as open water in the summer.
Refusal to believe something doesn't make it not exist. (Like flat earthers when you can prove the roundness yourself in like 20+ different ways)
@@jasonreed7522 Wait, you actually think the earth is round?
I get the feeling that Thomas Groesbeck went his whole life without every actually paying attention to anything before typing a comment and posting it.
It seems like the big flaw in the heartland theory is that much of the heartland is frozen a lot of the time, making it worth much less than other territory.
And another big part is mountains and deserts
And thats where global warming comes in play
the ability to traverse it quickly by horses or trains is the key: its a highway that connects rimland breadbaskets .
@@konstantinpakhomov3910 As I understand it, a big problem with this is with global warming occurring(and the russians are aware and are optimistic about it) is that a lot of the infrastructure laid down to move the grain around from the wheat belt will need a massive overhaul to move it north into the thawing lands.
@@konstantinpakhomov3910 Agree. But if it happens it will be probably a very short-lived gain for "heartland" people. Unfrozen land will be offset by more desertification, and massive global migration waves will be triggered towards more habitable areas. (that's already happening, but it will scale up)
Perhaps the sense of scale is better conveyed without using Mercator Projection
According to one of my college textbooks, Mackinder's theory made sense if you were only using Mercator Projection for all your maps...
Only Mercator Projection should be used to explain mackinder thesis. Since it is the social theory in the view of the British empire.
Making British isle larger, and Russia more intimidating.
Let me point out something here, this ‘’heart land’’ thesis, geographical influence on politics, etc. are Schmitt’s ideas, other than that, he didn’t think that controlling the heartland will bring you to control the world, but they way British Empire can end is by loosing the control over the sea by letting the enemy gain control over the hartland. Their biggest fear is Russian-German alliance, that can bring the end of anglo-Saxon sea dominance
I can't thank you enough for this video. I made a bad presentation in school and needed to redo it, but I didn't know what to do or how to remember so much information. Fortunately, I found your video, wrote some notes on it, and studied for my redo. My teacher said she could tell I had done my research this time. Thank you
Your hypothesis is wrong.
@@sford2044 Those papers are not a "right or wrong" test, it's about the formation, presentation and conveyance of the information. I'm totally assuming this though.
Has sharing the name of a school shooter impacted your life at all?
@@visassess8607 surprisingly not much, most people don't realize it until 20-30 minutes later by which time the interaction is over
@@nicolascruz4324 Okay well thanks for answering my question fast
The best presentation I have seen about Sir Mackinder`s tesis about the geographical pivot of history. The worst nightmare of the anglo-saxon elite: allience between the german technologies and creative thinking from a side, and the vast resources of Russia to the other one.
How does the saying go? "Keep the French in, the Germans down, and the Russians out!"
@@Grubnar What Mackinder means in his geopolitical point
They never worried about that to begin with since the concept is absurd. It's like worrying about an alliance between the Americans and the Russians to split Europe between them.
My favorite history teacher in high school used to say that the answer to any question about Russia's motives would always boil down to "warm water seaports."
And y'know what... that's a very helpful way of understanding Russia.
I read it "sea sports" and was really confused.
Same…I was like “oh Putin wants to jet ski? Is this what it’s all about?”
And the only time it got defeat by on it self
RIMLAND
NICHOLAS J SPYKMAN
USA goal is to isolate RUSSIA
USA is starting wars not Russua
I saw a picture today with china's President above the French and Germany Presidents at peace talks thank you Pres Nixon for taking us off the gold standard and opening up the China heart land good job.
Thank you for educating me on this … as a 57 year old Brit … I am now beginning to question everything we were taught at school …
Some very important things were deliberately missed out !
similar to Fukuyamas theory on how ancient civilizations popped up in river valleys because defeated peoples only had two very obvious directions to go. up stream or downstream.
Frankly any fool could predict civilizations to rise near freshwater sources that also grant mobility. What would be immensely difficult to account for would be a great civilization rising in a desert or tundra. That, too, depends upon how one defines civilization.
@@RepublicConstitution , well said. I'd suggest Rome as a good refutation of Mackinder : it's been knocked over numerous times and is only adequately defended.
The same goes for the United Provinces (~1600) in the 80yrs war with Spain. What counts in both these examples is cash. It's self explanatory :
if you have the money you can equip an army.
@@RepublicConstitution That civilizations often started in river valleys has hardly anything to do with access to fresh water or mobility on the water. Rivers can transport sediments which makes river valleys often fertile. That is the main reason why civilizations started in river valleys: it is easy to have highly productive agriculture there. And only in river valleys with fertile soils you find great ancient civilizations.
@@vinm300 Spain had more resources and power than the netherlands in the 80 years war. Geography was a huge benefit to the Dutch. There was no land connection that the Spanish could use to attack the Netherlands and naval invasion are really hard to stage. Also the Netherlands are full of trenches to dry up the land. These trenches give huge defensive advantages and won the Dutch the one or other battle. Most of the 80years war was actually not a war. The dutch kicked out the spanish and then the war was entirely on the sea, but never on land again. The war was effectively over after 40 years, but the spanish were salty and only with the peace of westphalia could they be forced to end the war.
@@forschool523 , well said , I enjoyed that reply.
However, Philip II went bankrupt 3 times. Went Spanish troops
massacred & destroyed Antwerp it was because they hadn't
been paid.
By the time Spain signed the Peace of Westphalia (1648)
they had lost Catalonia and Portugal (1640).
France had been at war with them, the English were at war
or attacking shipping, the Dutch were attacking shipping even
during the 12yr truce.
Economically Spain had more income but vastly more expenses.
The Dutch republic was the wealthier by far.
Actually believe it or not trade continued between the two adversaries for the whole 80yrs : wool & salt from Spain to the Dutch ; grain & Baltic goods from the Dutch to Spain. (Salt was for the herring trade).
With Dutch merchants actually supplying Spanish military.
And I think Dutch banks lent money to Spain.
The Dutch said, "We'd trade with the Devil if our ships didn't burn".
Sounds like China has been reading Mackinder. Their Belt and Road Initiative seems almost copy-pasted. I prefer Mahan myself however. Dominance of the sea and air is the real key. Eurasia certainly has the resources to build a fleet, but one does not simply "build a fleet." Just ask any of Britain's past enemies.
Funny, most of the time the analysis is mostly about China turning ‘Mahan’ with their carriers and stuff (I’ve even read analyses saying they’ve turned ‘Corbett’). The problem is it’s strategic culture is torn between land and sea, kinda like France in the 1700s.
@@StrategyStuff True. I think they have a concomitant strategy of suppressing the rimlands to allow uncontested dominance of the heartland; A2AD, String of Pearls, and all that. But any Mahanistic global dominance of the seas by China, along the lines of Britain 1815-1945 or the U.S. 1945-Present, is a long way off and probably not their main goal. Incidentally, by going for both I think they've doomed themselves in the long-run. Most of their problems come from their naval ambitions, whereas nobody would bat an eye if they focused solely on vassalizing Central Asia.
@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 Yep, going for both means that they will be repeating the strategic experience of 18th Century France.
"One does not simply 'build a fleet'"
Romans: "Hold my beer"
@@StrategyStuff I think an argument can be made that naval expansion (carriers and ports) is China's "short term strategy", while the OBOR / BRI is their "long-term strategy". In the short term they plan to secure resources and trade lanes for long-term growth. In the long-term they planned to dominate the Eurasia heartland economically and politically (anyone who thinks they can militarily dominate Russia nowadays is daydreaming).
This is especially telling in how OBOR is playing out. While the "chain of pearls" has been very vulnerable to outsider (American) interference and making everyone from India to Japan uneasy, the inland route through Central Asia has only managed to bring Russia and China closer together. One can easily see which side of the strategy is more 'reliable'.
It's actually amazing how this thesis ties together WW2, Chinas Belt-and-Road plan and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022, and probably explains some unique Russian sentiments due to their position as holders of the heartland such as "the whole world is against us and it is our inherent destiny to be hated".
It's also remarkable that Germany in 1918 basically had managed (as the first nation in history besides Russia) to have the option of just taking over the heartland, and was really only hindered by the Entente's advance onto Germany itself. And I think that we can all agree that German mentality coupled with Russian geography would have single-handedly rewritten world history.
russo german alliance is virtually unbeatable, that's why France did all it could to destroy Dreikaiserbund
@@wtfbros5110 Yes, if both land powers of Europe were allies, the Entente wouldn't stand a chance. There would be nothing holding both empires back, and nothing keeping them from becoming sea powers.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the prime example of why this heartland thesis fails. Day one Ukraine bombed out almost all rail access into the country, and blew bridges. Given Russia is so heavily dependent on rail to advance they have effectively been denied a swift, mobile army. Their roadway supply efforts are laughable.
@@AimlessSavant but with Russian Air superiority cant say Ukraine win the war. Rail and Roads can denied with invention of plane and helicopter
Ukraine of today is just Catherine the Great screaming through time. "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." Russia is in the same position today.
Thank you for this video, the most clear mackinder theory on youtube.
th-cam.com/video/ZbZ4XGKCBf4/w-d-xo.html
This theory seems to be building off of some extreme oversimplifications. For one, this central heartland power would not really be able to match the industrial output of "rimland" powers due to a lack of resources, manpower, and much more.
A lot of the comments have already talked about this, but I want to primarily talk about a few other weaknesses in this theory
One, Mackinder is assuming that rails (even assuming they are as efficient as naval transport) can be constructed anywhere, easily, and without the same weaknesses as naval. The issue is that rails can easily be cut off and made unusable. Naval, if a port is blocked then it simply needs to head to another port, or it can set ip on the coast, and send small ships to get what it needs, but with rail, if a part of the rail is destroyed, then the rail is made useless to that point until it is repaired fully.
On top of that, rails cannot easily be made anywhere. There is a reason why much of Siberia is still inaccessible, it is not because the Soviets and Russia haven't tried to build rails through it, but rather because it is extremely difficult to BUILD and MAINTAIN the rails in the region. Just as much as it may prove a defensive bonus, it so to hinders The heartlands own strength.
The next issue is that Mackinder completely ignores Africa, The Americas, and Oceania in this theory. The Americas with their Mountains, Lowlands, and Central Stepped (great plains) have all the same qualities as the "heartlands" while still having easy access to the worlds oceans and none of the drawbacks of Siberia, unfarmable terrain, low population, and low resources. If anything, going by Mackinder's logic whoever controls North America would control the world so long as they controlled north america in its entirety. (historically the reason why this hasn't been the case is because North America has all the resources a nation could dream of having all next to eachother, so the nations that have controlled the region have grown disinterested in the rest of the world they didn't need)
Finally, Mackinder is assumiing that Rimworld powers are naval powers, forgetting that many of these nations are in fact land based powers. German, Italy, India, Iran (Persia), Arabia, China, Etc. are all land based powers. They have relatively weak navies, and have historically, and modernly, focused on their armies and land based strength. Notably here is Germany which has shown it's ability to conquer much of the heartlands thanks to its strong military, and thanks to the geography of the great North European Plane (another weakness to this heartlands theory)
Siberia has very vast resources, even more than usa, in natural gas, oil, and minerals. Only see how much they export of all minerals, in many of them is always in the most relevant in the world. And see how much wheat they produce.
In the other things you say, you are correct, but what would happen if global warming continues, Russia would dominate the Arctic, have more seaports, and more usable land.
And about seaports, with modern technology it's very easy to destroy seaports from far away with missiles and there are some that there is still no defense for them. Remember how Alexander the great destroyed the Persian navy with h little effort neglecting them seaports. And also those same technologies can destroy easily any ship, this is whythe us has a lost war with China in the info Pacific d they don't have India in their side
Where to begin:
The problem with Siberia is partly to do with global warming. It doesn't make the land usable and easier to extract resources from, it does the opposite. Melting Permafrost is far more difficult and causes far more problem than frozen permafrost. This further compounds on the issues with rails in maintaining them, and preventing them from getting damaged.
As for your statement of Alexander, he never beat the Persian Navy, nor did he ignore it. The Persian Navy was a constant thorn in his side throughout his entire conquests, and ultimately they defected to his side because they did not like the Persian Emperor, and because he was forced to compromise with them.
As for the China and US thing, from what I know of history, China and the US have never been in war. There was the US involvement in the Boxer rebellion which was a complete Diplomatic Corps victory, not china. Either way, China, and that region of Asia, is part of the rimland powers. China being strong simply futher disproves Mackander's heartland theory.
This is prior to nuclear energy as well... The ability to exert force and be anywhere thanks to nuclear submarines. This thesis is outta date since WW2. But it is still interesting to think about geo politics and motives of people prior to WW2.
America is not a part of the world island (afroeurasia) that's it about America, it's awesome, but it's just an island, not the world island.
@@athingwhichexists The Athenians had already decimated the Persian fleet at their many naval battles during the Persian Wars.
I come back to this video every now and then to appreciate the badass narration.
This thesis contradicts with Russia's geography problem. Limited naval access of Heartland is its undoing. Without enough naval trade routes you cannot advance your economy as much as Rimland countries. And without a robust economy forget world dominance.
River Trade Routes.
From my understanding the thesis stipulates that for one power to achieve world domination they need to control the heartland *and* eastern europe. Just the heartland isn't enough, for many reasons. As you say, look at Russia's problems.
@TheoXaris Oh yeah.. poor Russia being bullied by everyone. Nobody lets it dominate the world.. Russians control more than enough. How about doing something useful for once instead of just controlling?
@TheoXaris True. But let's not forget about centuries of Russian imperialism and subsequent Soviet horrors which caused casualties of comparable scales.
@TheoXaris Man, your comment reeks of modern Russian revisionist agitprop. Overwhelming majority of victims of Holodomor were ethnic Ukrainians. No, it wasn't the JEWWWZ who orchestrated communism in Russia (you can stick your antisemitism where the sun don't shine). It was the Russians who adopted and implemented it, and Russians used that ideology later to control the entire Soviet Union and its satelites, continuing the established imperialist tradition.
But otherwise, yes, bolshevik terror was generally first targeted at the "internal enemy" before focusing outwards which is a typical trait of totalitarian state.
Russian empire was an empire in every sense of the word. The only difference from other European imperialist powers of the time was the geographic limitation mentioned in the video: constrained access to sea and limited naval capability which then couldn't compete with established powers. As a result Russian imperialism focused inland, the only direction where it could progress.
The "ending barbarism and bringing civilization" shtick is what literally every imperialist power uses to justify their actions. Demonizing enemy, painting thier own imperialism as "self-defense" and necessary to restore civilization. Yes, Russians suffered under the Mongol Khanates (although I very much doubt the scale of slavery you mentioned), and it was sort of self-defence at first, but from a certain point it was just conquering foreign lands, colonisation and forced Russification. This is evident to this day, for example in Caucasus region. Without overwhelming military presence those "Russian" republics would have left the federation long time ago. There were no Russians in Siberia and north-East Asia before the colonization.
Thank you for explaining the theory and thanks for the maps and animations. Unbelievable how the relevance of your video increased during the last 4 weeks ...
A big issue with this theory in the modern day; Mackinder couldn't have forseen how rapidly interconnected the rimlands have become with the outer islands. Instead of them being treated as 2 seperate entities like before, in the modern day they are effectively a unified entity. This would tremendously greaten the difficulty of a conquest of the rimlands.
Its the old Sparta vs Athens. Great naval power vs Great land power.
In that one the land power won, probably will again if America (naval) tried to fight russia & China (land).
@@James-sk4db with nukes no one would win, but I'd disagree about a conventional conflict. Russia is largely irrelevant and most Chinese people live near the coast, hence why they're becoming more of a Naval power now.
@@jeremiahblake3949 Russia irrelevant? my friend, if there is a big war in Europe tomorrow it would be like thousands of tanks, artillery, shells being produced every month, 25 million mobilized Russians with AK's, almost indefinite resources such as food, oil and so on. Economy, basic needs, they largely can live by themselves and not give a fuck. If this is not enough they have the largest nuclear arsenal. In just plain numeric and strategic point of view, there is no way Russia is irrelevant military power in a potential war of that scale. Don't kid yourself.
What a great channel I've stumbled across. Keep up the good work. I expect your TH-cam channel to become very successful in the near future. Make sure you stick to your formula that works. Don't bend to the desires of your audience because that's what often kills new and growing channels.
Honestly the big flaw in this theory is the dichtomy between geographical contentiousness and separation, the Himalayas are far more of a dividing barrier than most straits are.
the Himalayas is not part of the "Heartland". in fact the argument is it defends the Heartland as it confine the coastal Indian power to the subcontinent.
You explained this well. Nice job.
THIS WAS SIMPLY BRILLIANT ANALYSIS, GOD BLESS YOU
All caps invocation of nonexistent supernatural characters is sign of a broken mind.
@@johnsmith1474 how sad is your life
It's interesting how heartland in most of history was rule by nomads.
It sort of vindicates it- no matter which era, it is only the civilisation with the most efficient land transport that dominates it
The innumerable steppe hordes dominated until Russia brought roads and forts to secure areas, which is why it took four centuries for them and a few decades for the Huns/Turks/Mongols, but only Russia has stayed in control
@@lewisyeadon4046 but most of the time horse nomads fight another for grazing right.
Not really, anytime anyone tried to build a city, barbarians would sack the city before it could develop into a nation or empire.
it is a thesis that luckily only ever saw any real truth in the Mongolian conquest. Air power, aerospace technology, and nuclear weapons has caught up and surpassed the strategic thesis.
And now the control of certain datacenters that can route information to any part of the world, and route around any breaks or conflict. A nation exists because the people agree it goes. In the information age, physical border are even more blurred.
Did it hold truth with the Mongolians? They simply burned whatever was in their path, & that was this area. They could only hold it momentarily & left no physical legacy.
@@sirmount2636 Europe was largely spared the Mongols due to the habit of their Gur-Khans dying at inopportune moments; requiring all war leaders to return to Karakoram to elect the new Gur-Khan.
@@SportyMabamba actually it was the terrain. Not much room for horse hordes in European forests. Also too wet for their bows. & once the Egyptians slaughtered them, it was over
Even the Mongols don't really give truth to the theory. They were successful, to a degree, and they were from the Heartland, but they were not successful because they were from the Heartland.
I'm cookin rn and this really blew my mind...I've always felt geography was an overlooked aspect of war and conquest, as well as in today's technologically and financially connected world. Great vid!
This theory seems pretty misguided but is thought provoking nonetheless, maybe because of the amazing quality of this video.
I'll have to agree, even though its easier to say/see that after over a hundred years after his initial theory.....
It's misguided now, but it wasn't then. The Heartland could only have achieved dominance as a German-Russian (that way round) alliance. Germany is now right out of the picture. Russia obsesses about its borders in terms of security from western Europe. All it wants is a buffer and this doesn't include the Baltic States, despite their paranoia, but certainly White Russia and Ukraine (the name itself means "borderland"). There is no Russian desire to expand beyond this or to achieve any sort of imperial world-domination. The same goes for China, which looks to trade with, but has no ambitions to conquer, territories to its west. It is the breaking of Germany which has shafted the heartland theory.
Meanwhile, Washington is currently supporting a war in Eastern Europe which it must necessarily see as "Heartland Containment". I would not buy into any "freedom for Ukraine" argument, that's just Christmas Tree decoration. The Heartland doesn't (any more) need containing.
As a world builder I thank you for sharing.
I'm currently trying to design a world map that I'll place different nations on. This video will be helpful when I think about coastial areas and transportation.
Lol didn't think I'd come across one
Pay attention to the geography in world history too for more realism
Also recognize the flaws of this theory, the heartland's principal advantage is that its natural barriers protect it from the world, but this also means its cut off.
Even birds have to fly around the Himalayas and nobody ever conquered across the Sahara Desert, they went around it. If your cut off from the rest of the world you will fall behind.
Population and money (trade) are power and ocean trade is the easiest/most efficient means of moving goods in any era.
@@GreenLeafUponTheSky good point. how things played out and social aspects of nations is important.
@@jasonreed7522 I was thinking that. the protections can also be a problem.
While falling behind is an issue being cut off can also preserve your culture and way of life.
While trains do help out the core of the inner parts of a nation I agree ships are king when it comes to transporting goods.
That's why so many older large empires were around the Mediterranean sea.
In 1904( Japan-Russia War) Mcinder focused on the potential threat from Russian Empire or Japanese Empire for GB. In 1919,he focused on Leninism and its expansion. In 1943, he focused on Stalinism and its potential expansion(Nazi had been stopped already). In 2018, US is aware of the combined strength of China and Russia(Belt and Road initiative) via new technology.
Agree with the critical comments here: good video on bad theory.
100 years of British foreign policy was based on this. So its not inconsequential.
You don't understand the theory if you think it's bad.
No one realy ever managed to conquer the entire heartland, only country that was even close to it, was Soviet Union and Mongols. But even mongols didn't conquer Poland, and Soviet union didn't conquer Persia. No single power yet, had controlled whole heartland.
Also, as it had been said, people were aware of the power of the heartland, so they did everything to prevent it's domination. Yet, Russia still dominates the world's Politics.
Also, I would say it is good theory, but incomplete. It doesn't encompass the USA. USA is america's own heartland, and USA dominates the Americas in every way. And it right now, dominates the world.
I would say that there are two heartlands on two main continents, and this brings inevitable conflict between them.
Jan
Well I don’t buy that you have to control more of heartland than USSR actually was in control of. No. And yes, America as a Continent is a heartland of itself, agree. Conclusion: makes no sense nowadays. At the peak of British Empire it was nonsensical as well. It all depends on technical and militarily given power. Look at the superiority of airforce power over naval power. British Empire had to fall and fell once naval power lost its leading role in armament and flexibility.
@@lowersaxon
Well before the fall of the Mongol Empire, they were pretty much controlling the world's trade. That is one point.
Another point is the fact that heartland thesis is not absolute - it only implies that controlling the heartland is something very important.
Another point - Heartland should realy include most of Persia. Which mongols did controll while Russia didn't. Controlling Persia is important because it is only land route to india from europe. And in the original thesis it does include it indeed.
Next point, east europe is key to controlling the heartland. That is because there are only TWO weak spots in the heartland. One is Persia, Second is Eastern Europe. Persia however has the Zagros mountains, and the Tigris-Euphrat rivers, which can stop some invasions. And the terrains there are hot which makes invasions hard endevaour.
However, the eastern europe, is different. Unless you attack it during winter, there is virtualy nothing that can stop you until Ural. So any nations till the river Oder, and river Nysa, is in fact an existential threat to any power in the region, unless they are either, neutral, friendly, or under the controll of such power. This is not so, for Persia - Persia is not a threat to power in the north side of Caucasus, because of the Caucasian mountains. Persia can be surely an asset to such power, but if it loses it, it can never become an existential threat to it.
So it is correct to assume, that whoever controlls the eastern europe, controlls the power that resides therein - simply because they CAN use threats against it, and force it into submission.
Controll, doesn't always mean direct controll. USA, doesn't hold direct controll over everything. But it is still, the power that dictates the world it's will, more or less. And why is that? It is because right now, it controlls the eastern europe, Indirectly thru it's influence. During the cold war, there was a struggle for power between US and USSR. US won it. Good for us, since USSR was bad. But USSR was very close to controlling the world - in fact there were many communist revolutions thruout the world, including latin america, and many countries in Asia.
This simply proves how important the eastern europe is.
I just want to clarify something here guys; the theory is not "bad", it is the application/execution of said theory that is almost impossible.
What is true is: if some entity find a way to EFFICIENTLY unify the Eurasian heartland, they will have access to a mass of resources that will allow them to conquer the world.
(Emphasis here on "Efficiently")
The main problem of that theory is the fact that it does not hold water when it come to commerce & economic growth which are dictated by the balance of transport.
As Strategy Stuff mentioned at the end, transport by boat is at least an order of magnitude more efficient than anything else.
This is why the "heartland" of the North American Continent is so much richer than that of Eurasia. Because it has a lot of navigable rivers flowing toward warm ocean waters which allow for easy and efficient economic activity.
Zbigniew brzinski seems to have simply rehashed this theory in his book the “grand chessboard” ... you can see it’s influence in brzinski and Kissinger’s realpolitik..
This theory is the basis for most other geopolitical theories because of some basic theories it puts out: 1) The struggle between 'land' and 'sea' powers, 2) The geographic 'uniqueness' of the Heartland, and 3) Thinking about strategy at the global level rather than just regional.
Those who control EurAsia control the World
-
j.h.mackinder
This is not a theory this is
Physics
The biggest flaw to this is assuming that rail is more efficient than water.
Rail $0.11 per ton per mile
Barge $0.03 per ton per mile
Ocean $0.01 per ton per mile
This gives the rim lands an edge. Also the American heart land has natural rivers with minor need for rail protected by the two biggest oceans in the world. Thus the heart land theory may be right but it is located in the center of the USA.
A better approach might be to treat the entire Americas as the heartland.
-The entire regions could sustainably house and feed 1 billion people, with the right tech improvements (energy, recycling, water) maybe double that. Has Area lightly smaller than the entire Asian continent. It's more controllable than the pipe dream of trying to control all of Asia.
-It's narrow and long giving rise to highly varied climates, ecosystems, ease of land transport, plentiful water and the longest mountain ranges in world.
-It's resource dense. The canadian shield is massive and incredibly rich in iron and nickel, some of the largest orogen belts full of copper, Large igneous provinces with PGEs and other rare materials (not as large as siberan LIP but more accessible).
-It's highly defendable from every approach due to massive oceans surrounding it. It only needs a strong Navy and airforce (sound familiar?), a strong army isn't mandatory. Technology (OTHR/long range radar and satellites allow information superiority well in advance for any type of threat). Approaches also follow a great circle, which means the entire southern half doesn't need a strong focus on defense infrastructure.
-Said oceans tap into the second and third largest market in the world almost direcltly at cost of 0.01 USD per mile ton (these markets being EU and China). It's also freely accessible. To cheaply move goods around the rim with ships (China to Asia) you pass through at least 1 and up to 3 choke points. Elsewise you go over land at a higher price. This is also applicable to internet cables and the movement of information through them. Overland cables are bad for transmitting data because of the cost of setting them up.
-It has equatorial access for space launches (and a lot of it), second only to Africa. This improves prospects of putting big things in space. Any nation that dominates the equatorial plane of space (or any spactial domain above out atmosphere) has a more real chance of dominating the world than holding siberia. Space is guranteed to become a trillion dollar industry (or very close) by the end of the century.
Because of these factors, imo the USA will always command 20 to 25% of the worlds economy regardless of the change of hands that happen in the 'world island'. It also has better space access than a lot of the "heartland' on the world island.
I would say the best approach is 3 heartlands - one in eastern Europe, one in northern China, and one in the American midwest. Of these, the American one is by far the most powerful, having strong geographic armor, a vast interior river system, a very stable temperate climate, and a comparatively united people. Notice that each of these heartlands keeps producing some of the most powerful nations in the world, with the United States currently at the top.
Continents lacking a heartland like region are continuously doomed to be regional powers at most. Africa is generally either dry savanna, desert, or moist tropical rainforest. South America has the Gran Chaco, but this is a tad dry and most importantly very sparsely populated. Australia's southeast corner is a breadbasket but is simply too dry and rugged to realize its full potential. The Pacific islands are either too tropical, too small, or too rugged to have such a region. Thus, the great powers of eastern Europe, China, and North America get to dominate the world.
One interesting thing to add is that France and the British isles have low, temperate regions that resemble the heartland, yet are more coastal and smaller in scope. They worked with this by pooling in resources from large naval empires, along with heavy industrialization to make very good use of this. Here they managed to take advantage of cheap water transport, as well as rail, and realized a huge potential for their agricultural lowlands. This required the naval empire however, which when it fell apart greatly weakened the nations. Now only a strong global economy and some soft power over former territories help prop them up.
@@StuffandThings_ I think you are right about your assessment. My words or terms i used are a bit wrong so i i'll have a second go at iterating what i meant so it sounds more reasonable. I would like to firstly address however that i think you underestimate the potential for the reasonably populated agricultural and industrial regions of south Brazil to be their own "pseudo" or secondary pivot within the Americas. Brazil is the 5th largest agricultural producer by value in the world, the 6th most populated and critically this area has the second largest reserves of iron ore in the world right now. That doesn't mean i think it's comparable to the three you mentioned, just that it has the features of one. It's a naturally protected area as well but to a lesser extent. Nothing about the resource potential of the americas is wrong as far as i'm aware.
The heartland (or as it's called in the theory, the pivot) of the Americas is definitely the Midwest, although i don't think it's unreasonable to extend its definition as anything east of the Mississippi being the heartland. The new 'world Island' in this case being the entire Americas i was alluding to, and my point was that the Americas or the New World has a lot to offer to anyone who controls it to the same extent the original world island would give.
I'd like to add to my original statement that's it's not irrational to think it could fall under the control of a single entity, at present the USA has a very firm grip on it which is why i made my statement in the first place. The Darien gap, the only land barrier between the North and South continents is basically closed by choice. There is no economical or technical reason it isn't opened up, as far as i can tell it's political will and ecological considerations. Leading on from this......
The idea of the original world island falling under a single banner is much more theoretical. The Himalayas shield India, which i think in addition to the slightly more exposed China are two immovable objects on the 'old world island' that the Eastern European heartland or pivot could not move. North Africa and the Middle East also are effectively impassable. The three main deserts of North America are collectively smaller than the Arabian desert, which in turn is much smaller than the Sahara. The US has proven the ability to actually pass its deserts with rail, putting the basis of the world island theory to work within North America, making North America the first real World Island in my opinion. Adding to this, Pax Americana is a thing.
The rail lines of Arabia are disjoint by comparison and current attempts to rectify this have fallen by the wayside. Unlike the Darien Gap, this isn't a choice, it's straight up not competitive enough economically and technically it's very difficult. There is much less connecivity between Africa and Asia over land as a result, leading to all trade to basically happen by boat. I think this is the first weakness of the original theory. Africa does not belong in the world island even if it's neatly packed into the Old World landmass. This eliminates significant portion of the land and resources of "whoever controls the world island", which i think is simply Eurasia at this point. I could even go one step further, and say the Indian subcontinents should be excluded because traversal of the Himalayas and other nearby mountain ranges is another major hurdle than isn't encountered in the Americas (to the same extent).
About Australia: I know a bit about our perils since i am from there. The big issue is proximity, and by that i mean our most isolated city (perth) and it's port (fremantle) are, in the context of shipping, are days closer to Singpore than any eastern city, meaning things like steel come into {erth then go elsewhere. The breadbasket isn't just restricted to the SE corner, it extends all up the east coast. Inland (but nestled against the great dividing range) we have big plains with grain galore. On the coast (other side of great dividing range) we have dairy, fruit & veggies, fruit, citrus, wine and sugar. Far inland is cattle country. The west coast also has it's own mini bread basket. The issue is that despite all our grain production, we don't produce anough of the other stuff to actually sustain a massive population. Estimates of our ecologically sustainable population put our cap at about 50 million people. Compartively, Brazil is 500 million, the highest of any country.
Conclusion/TLDR: The Americas as a whole (North and South) is not the Heartland, my mistake, it's the most reasonable World Island as it's actually unifiable infrastructually in a competivive and technically feasible manner. The Original world island isn't feasible and shouldn't have included Africa. I suspect africa was included because the heartland thesis is the obious statement that all of the Old World is technically stronger/more resourced than the New World, and thus the thesis points to a worse case scenario about Russian domination of Eurasia.
A proper introduction into early 20th century Western strategic thinking, with a care for detail and present relevancy (China's 'One Belt, One Road' policy)!
Some aspects come into my mind that could be added *to* further *underline* *why* *this* *concept* *is* *not* *only* *of* *historical* *interest* :
° the distinct *social* context/ *network* *of* *Halford* *MacKinder* , associated to Alfred 'Milner's Kindergarden', the *Royal* *Institute* *of* *International* *Affairs* (a 'think-tank' today labeled as *'Chatham* *House'* with *Round* *Table* *Magazine* as it's outlet) and the 'anglophile' US *Council* *on* *Foreign* *Relations* points to a continuity as these institutions can be interpreted as a means of consolidating 'Anglo-Saxon' supremacy in an upcoming age of increasing 'de-colonization', often by bypassing institutional bureaucracy (Foreign Office, State Department) and public debate (e.g. the failed 'Jameson Raid' in 1895, later critized by conservative historians like Carroll Quigley). MacKinder's work delivered a lasting point of reference for *'trans-atlantic* *identity'* , preparing the co-ordination of security politics (e.g. Philip Kerr as British ambassador to the US and US journalist Walter Lippman advocating for the *'Destroyers* *for* *Bases* *Agreement'/'Lend Lease'* program in 1940) and current efforts of *'westernization'* (e.g. *expansion* *of* *NATO* since the end of the Cold War, the Western policy of *'diffusion* *of* *democracy'* / *regime* *change* ). Contemporary writings like 'The problem of Asia' (1900) by Alfred Thayer Mahan subscribe to a similar idea of a *maritime* *power-bloc* (compare George Orwell's 'Oceania') and had a comparable impact - on close allies as well as on potential antagonists (German Navy)... (for further 'least biased' reading: 'Round Table Movement and Imperial Union' by John Kendle)
th-cam.com/video/c0wH6YDfCzg/w-d-xo.html
° the striking example of the *'Baghdad* *railway'* investment project, dominated by German banks (arguably pressured by Berlin) within a struggling, but modernizing Ottoman Empire (1903-1940), arguably a major threat to British security interests at the Suez Canal (shortest sealane to British India) and a valid 'casus belli'
th-cam.com/video/LwMFypg_rRc/w-d-xo.html
° George F. Kennan's policy of *'containment'* *of* *the* *Soviet-Union* from 1946 throughout the *Cold* *War* (including *Nixon's* *visit* *in* *'Red* *China'* in 1972)
th-cam.com/video/I0oqmmeX4dA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/N5V9sP_nDCM/w-d-xo.html
° Zbigniew Brzezinski's writings reflect the dominant influence of McKinder (e.g. 'Game Plan: A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the U.S.-Soviet Contest. 1986.', 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. 1997.')
° the unratified *Silk* *Road* *Strategy* *Act* of 1999 with the goal of aligning former Soviet Republics in *Central* *Asia* with US interests
th-cam.com/video/p-wL-XIqmhw/w-d-xo.html
- which would clash now directly with the current Chinese initiative of infrastructure projects (including the founding of the *'Asian* *Infrastructure* *Investment* *Bank'* - structurally competing with the 'Bretton Woods' US institutions IMF and Worldbank)
th-cam.com/video/HnbnjzUv7sM/w-d-xo.html
- regions, currently destabilized by 'salafist terrorism' (from the Xinjiang province of China to Alewite ruled Syria) can be recognized as the 'shatter belt' that reflects both strategic vectors in proxy-wars...
th-cam.com/video/DHyBJ154W3I/w-d-xo.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
th-cam.com/video/fBF_Q8IHz7c/w-d-xo.html
I am not aware of another academic field that is capable to put political conflict into a unified perspective on a global scale and long-term, but *'political* *geography'* (combining geographical with historical studies in *inter-disciplinary* research), currently still Mackinder's 'Heartland' concept in particular (despite his 19th century idealization of a 'typical' antagonism between 'land powers', up until the 13th century, and 'sea-powers', from the 16th century onward, in a *spatial* construction - while these *'civilizations'* actually followed another in *time* ).
Thanks for your comment and your recommended videos/readings! Reading Mackinder and his thinking on China certainly made me think of OBOR, though the 'Heartland' part of that initiative seems to be increasingly stymied by Russian efforts. China's Grand Strategy in recent years has been described alternatively as Mahanian, Mackinder-ian, geoeconomic, even Corbettian (in an operational sense). My personal experience with OBOR, however, makes me wonder if China actually has a strategy here at all or is it just something they are improvising in the process of satisfying various official and economic interests...
@Strategy Stuff:
My pleasure.
"OBOR (...) seems to be (...) stymied by Russian efforts"
Do You have something specific in mind?
" *OBOR* (...) *makes* *me* *wonder* *if* *China* *actually* *has* *a* *strategy* "
I can relate to that sentiment.
Although I'm not nearly familiar enough with the country and it's culture, I suspect a tendency to 'throw money' at issues, as with China's coastal 'Special Economic Zones' that were originally conceived - besides gaining foreign currency - to transfer 'high technology' in joint-ventures (following Sun Yat-Sen's motive: modernizing a sovereign China by using Western capital), but end up as some forms of supply chains to Western companies - with the Chinese population as a 'fiercely competitive' market mostly for 'low tech' consumer goods - and with export oriented Chinese companies like Huawei as an exception from the rule.
Policy goals like 'life sciences' or a 'space program' sound great in the Five Year Plan (the 12th - the 13th seems to be more reflective: "Building a Moderately Prosperous Society") and may rally younger party members, but from the outside it feels like the 'old guard' of the Long March is missing, who had still observed matters in a slower pace but who were also grounded in lifelong 'grit'.
And despite the academic training of the recent 'nomenclatura', the traditional ratio of bureaucrat per citizen remains unfavourable to actual law enforcement.
Mere imitation of Western technocracy (e.g. 'collateral debt' under a figment of 'rule of law', e.g. stressing 'intellectual property rights' - rather than good writing...) may put the Chinese ultimately into a similar malady as the Germans: political isolation (lacking even a regional ideological counter to Wilson's '14 Points'), demonization and having nothing left, but 'cannons' (in reference to a remark by the German conservative historian Hans Rothfels when commenting on 19th century German liberals who lamented in their first parliament: "We do have *ideas* , but we lack the *cannons* ...).
What 'Chinese characteristics' exactly means to the rest of the world can't remain 'exotic' - as 'land powers' don't get to live in 'splendid isolation'...
th-cam.com/video/fpT2RZilN38/w-d-xo.html
LOL One Belt, One Road. You obviously don't understand how modern Chinese economics work. But keep believing in those ponzi schemes and lies....
@@@typen3k0
*Obviously* You can't follow an argument, or make a point by presenting facts.
Within this century someone will 'laugh out loud' about a population that failed to muster more effort than mere trolling.
Christoph Mahler Thank you for your extensive reply. This list of links be of much help in further research on geopolitics and grand strategy.
Wonderful, insightful, video. Please keep posting new ones
This is the first I've heard about this theory, and seeing the difference between the Rimlands and the Heartland really brings home the importance of naval power. Since 1492, the most powerful countries have been either the most able to use empire to extract wealth, or in recent times trade to produce wealth.
That the USSR controlled the Heartland for so long but still fell apart clearly shows that being excluded from the international network causes you to lag behind.
Being generous to McKinder, I would agree that if a major Rimland power conquered the Heartland (or vice versa) they would be in a strong position to then conquer the other rimlands. But this is just the point, the Heartland is not the prize, the World Island is.
And now we come to the issue, because everytime a Rimland power has threatened to capture the Heartland, the other powers have rallied to stop them. The 1st French Republic, The Third Reich, and the USSR have all tried to combine the naval empire/trade of the Rimland with the vast expanses of the Heartland and been met with enormous hostility.
Perhaps one day, a federalised and united Europe will bring a by then weakened Russia into the fold and from there start dominating East Asia, India, Persia, the Middle East, and Africa. But one has to ask, will the "New World" let that happen? I doubt it.
Europe dominating the world is a bad idea
Assuming the "New World" still had good relations with Europe at that point then the alliance would glady get stronger and have more trading partners.
Besides technology is rapidly making this theory obsolete. Nuclear submarines can surface in the melting arctic right theough the ice and launch ICBMs to every city in the heartland at once. ICBMs can be launched from Texas and still hit anywhere in the heartland, mountains barely mean anything in the face of modern warfare at its worst. Even for a conventional war airplanes can bypass most of these defenses. (Except the Himalayas but rockets can ignore those)
Now the key to geopolitics is air/naval/space power, land armies mean nothing when your enemy's can launch thousands of missils each capable of leveling an entire metropolitan area. (And therefore your army)
This is not a change for the better, MAD is terrible but as long as battles are kept to courts and the UN we are safe. (And Russias invasion of the Ukraine is showing how ineffective land armies can be when facing a slightly technologically superior enemy)
irish?
The "New World" wouldn't care unless the "Old World" started acting aggressively for their interests to the point that they look more akin to imperialists than interventionists. The modern era cannot support blatant power grabs anymore like Russia has committed itself to doing.
That being said, the "New World" likely won't have to worry about that for a long time. The bitterness Russia's invasion has evoked in Ukraine as well as the genuine and justified fear for security the EU's east feels from this aggression will be felt for a long time. And the Russian mentality would need a serious revolution to prevent this from happening again.
@@stephenjenkins7971 i think your right in that the "New World" wont have to worry for a long time/basically forever. Eurasia has a lot of unique cultures that don't all get along so the probability of any empire forming and conquering both the heartland and a major rimland region (most likely Europe or China based on geography) is very low in the near future. Add on the current rate if technological advancement of our species as a whole and i would bet we become fully fledged space fairers with asteroid mining and space navies / space based weapons long before the conditions arise for the World island to fall under a single power capable of threatening everyone else. (The resources of the world island pale in comparison to the asteroid belt where a single rock (Eros) contains enough gold to destroy the worlds economy from inflation several times over)
I really liked this theory. This would be an alternative explanation of why US fears a Russian-China alliance, as at the same time wants bad relations between India and China. The west of the Heartland is where US is putting all nuclear missiles (nuclear shield).
The only combination that for more than a century scared the shit out of UK later USA
is
Russia Germany axis
NATO pact was created
to make sure Germany never allies herself with Russia
I don’t believe that the US “fears a Russian-China alliance”. China depends too much on global trade; especially, trade/exports tot he US’s consumerism. China has too much to lose economically to have such an alliance with Russia.
problem of the "heartland" is, that it is virtualy useless, it is low density populated, has only some resources, but the problem of bad ability to move and bad temperatures for anythign besides server farms
It is only poorly populated due to its lack of economic exploitation
People go where they go for prosperity- if the main issue of efficiently transporting people and tools to the areas of abundance was possible, Siberia would be the new United States, economically, after a time
Siberia is richer than the US, it just doesn't have the seemingly endless rivers and is much larger in terms of area
Canada is in a similar position to Siberia, tho far less richer in terms of resources, in supply and diversity, as is Australia- just replace the permafrost with endless scorching desert
Australia could have the population and economy of the US and dominate SE Asia, so long as they solve the issue of water and transport- that's the biggest hurdle to fulfilling Mackinder's requirements
@@lewisyeadon4046 well low population is there for a reason humans settle on coast lines and rivers , the heartland lacks this, the peninsulars have it in abundance
I'd say the end result of the USA/USSR power struggle gives a good assessment of how useful this thesis turns out to be...
Exactly, it's weird too how he never changed his beliefs during or after WW2. He had several years to see the rise of the US.
You’re an amazing channel. Keep it up 👍🏻
enjoyed the video. loved the graphics, helped with understanding the theories. thank you
I find your explanation of this important (but to my mind, flawed) theory to be exceptionally good. Thank you.
Modern tech has made this theory obsolete, nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers, nuclear submarines, and Balistic missiles have rendered all of the advantages of the "heartland" obsolete.
It also has the flaw of, if your defense is that nobody can cross the Himalayas to reach you how can you possibly influence anyone on the other side of those same barriers. Basically you are trapped by your protection and maintaining rule across the barrier is highly problematic. (To say nothing of Africa's problematic geography for a purely land power to dominate)
In contrast a naval power like the UK or USA is protected by the sea but through their strong navy can easily spread influence across the sea. (The entire basis of the colonial era's power structure and it continues to benefit the USA today)
As a Swede, I'm very confused about being included in the "heartlands". For practical purposes, Sweden and Norway are basically an island (except that one bridge to Copenhagen)
If Russia can deny access to the Baltic (or even parts of it), Sweden has historically been highly vulnerable to Russian pressure. That’s why the U.K. insisted on demilitarisation of the Aland islands in the 1850s. A similar situation with Germany in both World wars.
@@StrategyStuff I just wan't to say it's amazing you come back to comments of a 3 year old video and still read and reply to comments
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 Well it's certainly brain stimulation for me! Plus the video's been getting tons of traction lately. It helps that it's quite easy to reply to (new) comments on the TH-cam Studio mobile app.
Really helpful for my Geopolitics class, I wish you could also examinate other authors, such as - Mahan, Haushofer, Ratzel, Golbery do Couto e Silva and Parag Khanna...
Informative and very precise. I would recommend.
th-cam.com/video/ZbZ4XGKCBf4/w-d-xo.html
Didn't know jack about Mackinder before like fourteen minutes ago but this seemed to be a reasonable presentation. Thanks.
I think the real problem with basing a theory on geographical characteristics is that advancing technology tends to neutralize static defenses. For example, a wide river was a truly formidable barrier during Mackinder's time, but the use of hovercraft on a large scale now makes them more like highways than barriers. Otherwise I think Mackinder is dead on in his understanding of the utility of natural defensive formations. These are barriers to your own forces as well as the enemy's so while they may help you defend, they in no way help you to attack, and in fact limit your own options in that regard. Thus his focus on Eastern Europe as the only truly viable way in (or out). This remained the strategy NATO used during the Cold War and nearly all of it's military exercises in Europe focused on stopping Warsaw Pact forces from moving through the Fulda Gap into western Europe. The fact that rimland and outer island powers can generate more wealth from well-developed sea trade than a landlocked power also undermines many of his assumptions but does not invalidate them. What we end up with is actually a fairly accurate explanation for why the Soviet Union ultimately fell. Good stuff!
Mackinder didn't know a lot - for example the wealth of Permian Oil and gas in the USSR, however I think that the activities of the USSR and its successor suggest that the Russians believe in his ideas. For example in the massacre of 20,000 officer class Poles in the Katyn forest in 1940. You may have noted that Putin wants Alaska back too. Loony.
I'd love more geopolitical videos like this one!
The same theory was applied to Quebec and Canada before it fell to Wolfe
A natural fortress, historically fortresses and geography rarely stop anyone
It just takes a little longer
Great channel. Glad that yt recommended me one of your videos!
This theory explains the importance of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) which most western geopolitical thinkers tend to dismiss as insignificant.
If you wouldn't have added critique of the thesis, I doubt that there would have been as much comments critically assessing the theory (which of course it should be). Good job on making this scientific!
I think a lot of these ideas are valid, but it strikes me that these kinds of theorists have no conception of sociology or political science.
In order for a "Heartland" power to dominate the "World Island", they'd have to develop a culture and political system that would be far more amenable to this goal than either those of Russia, Germany, China, or any other contender. They'd have to create a perfect society that others would wish to join. A Russo-Sino-Afro-Germanic, democratic welfare state, perhaps?
And at that point, why would they be a threat? If this new, wonderful Russo-Sino-Afro-Germanic society could stably contain all of the World Island, why would the rest of the world NOT be on its good side? Or even join it? Why would such a society even be thought morally capable of attacking outside nations?
My point is, for a "World Island" polity to be stable would require decades, if not centuries, of cultural and political progress.
You can't just invade Russia or Germany or China or Africa like it's a game of Risk. Sure, you can invade these places just to cleanse them of people, like Hitler's Lebensraum idea, but the major reason holding land is militarily important is for the manpower and economic output, both of which are killed off alongside the local populaces. And as we've seen, killing off millions of people tends to get you right on track for the Untergang, as half your country wants to assassinate you and the other half is busy fighting off your irate neighbours.
Great video, by the way. I just get frustrated when the world seems to be run by paranoid, ignorant lunatics masquerading as foreign policy sages. There's a lot of them in the modern era. They should all go to hell.
Too true. Any "heartland" power that attempts to achieve such a thing would find their already limited manpower rapidly decreasing as the native populations express their discontent at being ruled over. And, like you say, short of either going back to where they come from or committing a genocide that would defeat the entire purpose of ruling over Europe and Asia in the first place, there is no way for any "heartland" invader to have lasting peace.
Exactly. Why aren't the steppes' areas world leaders of anything? The theory assumes that geography is destiny, when it so obviously has not been historically. With the industrial revolution, and the power and wealth this unleashed, geographical centrality is not a sign of anything much. The theory collapses economy, culture, technology and politics into geography, which I believe are more important indicators of political power, soft power included.
This is a very helpful overview, well presented. Thank you.
For economic power. Whoever has the heartland have economic power. This why we have the war in syria, iran and so on.
5:07 very interesting bc the „heartland“ i would say are mostly undiscovered or at least unused acres of Land. In the winter its brutal and in the Summer you have so many insects you really cant enjoy it at all. Whereas the „Rimlands“ are the most important geographical locations. You have the middle east where ancient cultures rose and i think i dont have to say anything about Europe and the costal cities of asia, all developed pretty good
A slight correction I would add is that there has been an instance where the heartland came close to dominating the world island; The Soviet-Polish war of 1919 was won by the Poles by the barest skin of their teeth. The purpose of this conflict for the Soviets was twofold: firstly, to reclaim territory ceded in the Brest-Livotsk treaty which was now considered defunct as the German empire had recently been liquidated. Secondly, to establish a land border with Germany through which to assist the struggle of the German revolutionaries through the clandestine transport of material aid and manpower, as well as the capability to leap across the border as soon as a state of revolution had been achieved. Had Tukhachevsky not been turned back at the gates of Warsaw then there's a strong possibility revolution would have come to Germany, resulting in a scenario where eastern Europe would be united under the Communist heartlands, creating a scenario where the highly industrialised Germany would directly assist in the mechanisation of the heartlands.
Very interesting that the Black Sea is basically the only region where ships can genuinely and easily access the Heartland in most conditions. Thus making the Bosphorus (and Dardanelles), along with Crimea, ridiculously valuable assets. I think many world powers have these two regions in mind, with NATO accepting Turkey despite its feuds with other NATO members and a somewhat unsavory regime, and Russia pursuing cruel and aggressive foreign policy to keep nations along the Black Sea in its grasp. With a thawing heartland, increasing effectiveness of land transport, and a world increasingly desperate for resources, I think we may see conflicts in the Black Sea region intensify greatly over the coming decades.
I kinda have a few disagreements with this:
1. Shipping is, and, unless something crazy happens, will always be the cheapest mode of transportation. Ships can be bigger, and don't need constant maintenance of the sea - you don't have to build or repair the sea, you can't blow up the sea and stop maritime traffic for a while. The only way to stop ships is to shoot at them. Also, the reliance of ships on ports is negligible, and the only places where a Heartland power could block the shipping lanes right now is the Suez, which will only slow ships down.
2. What ships lose to trains in speed, airplanes can get back. Planes are faster, their routes are shorter, and they are also quite difficult to stop. A plane-based military force, such as the US Marines, is perfect for rapid response to any Heartland power aggression and for stalling until the transport ships arrive in force and carry over an army for cheaper than the Heartland power could.
3. Mackinder seems to not have anticipated the strength of the aircraft carrier and of the missile-based weaponry. A fleet of submarines, missile destroyers and aircraft carriers, such as the American one, can defeat the land-based airforce of a Heartland power and establish control over a beachhead.
Trains are also cost-effective and fast, even if they compromise between the 2.
In one word: Top.
Best I've ever seen.
I don't think I fully understand why MacKinder thought the geographical pivot lies on the Eurasian plains. For one, the region has never been prosperous. Secondly, it's never been densely populated because why would anyone want to settle on this vast steppe wasteland? Thirdly, the power that has occupied the region for a long time - Russia - is still struggling to sustainably inustrialise.
The rimlands are much more prosperous and also more successful militarily. I think this simple fact negates MacKinder's theory. Please feel free to elaborate!
actionmacaque: The Heartland is important not because of its wealth, but because of its position.
Mackinder argued that the Heartland's central position and natural defensive barriers made it a easy position from which to concentrate, launch attacks in any direction, and be without fear of significant enemy retaliation. As examples, he cites the success of Hland empires like Mongolia, Timur etc. In overpowering the richer Rimlands.
Inevitably he has to address the Q of why R Empires were dominant in the 19thC. McK argues this is because from the 16thC onwards, the superior mobility of sea power allowed Rland powers to do what Hland empires could do previously: concentrate forces quickly, strike w/max force where Hland forces spread thin, and thus be free from Hland invasion.
McK argues that rail can deliver the same, if not better, mobility for Hland powers as it did for Rland powers. Thus the situation would revert to the Hland situation with some geopolitical descendant of the Mongols taking over Eurasia.
So to answer your Qs, 1 and 2 are irrelevant for McK: Yes the Rlands are richer but richer can only go so far in readdressing geopolitical disadvantages (this is not unique to McK: watch my Mughal video to see how Jos Gommans argues that the side of medieval India that produced lower agricultural yields actually made it the more militarily dominant side). Q 3 is true in that Russia never managed to create the sort of rail network that I think McKs theory theorized, BUT that doesn't discount a future power doing so.
The key, fatal, criticism of McKs theory is his assertion that rail mobility can be an equivalent to sea mobility, which to date is not true - direct rail may be faster than sea but it is still far less efficient at carrying goods - important when considering logistics etc. If rail is not an equal to sea mobility then McKs assertions about the potency of the Hland cannot come to pass.
Gengis Khan? In a modern sense an eastward expansion to the natural border of the Rhine and Alps. A region of consistent conflict. The modern struggle of East v West.
@ Strategy Stuff:
Underlining the long standing historical experience of nomadic invasions into ancient regions of civilization can come to mind, but that doesn't reflect the troubled attitude of Anglo-Saxon politicians or German landed gentry (both export oriented, rather reactionary and quite slavophobic) when it came to assess the economic trajectory of a modernizing Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
Mackinder argues in 1904 *explicitly* (after stressing fundamental cultural differences due to specific modes of production):
"Perhaps the change of greatest intrinsic importance which took place in Europe in the last century was the southward migration of the Russian peasants, so that, whereas agricultural settlements formerly ended at the forest boundary, the center of population in all European Russia now lies to south of that boundary, in the midst of the wheat-fields which have replaced the more western steppes. *Odessa* *has* here *risen* *to* *importance* *with* *the* *rapidity* *of* *an* *American* *city* ."
All of that is reflected in the German creation of the *'Ukrainian* *State'* in 1918 (in return for foodstuff) - and from the Russian perspective also in the current, urban *'Euromaidan'* , drawing the former Soviet Republic into the Western sphere of influence. While Stalin managed to enforce the construction of a heavy industry, capable of resisting a German invasion and dominating Eastern Europe and East Asia (Korea, Vietnam) for decades, the Russian Federation still can't outproduce the state of Texas - but that is after two global wars that were major setbacks to Russian demographics (about 20 million dead in WW II - like Germany Russia always lacked the capital to further industrialize while Britain had built up it's capital by trade during the colonization of America and India).
The other point, Mackinder stresses, refers to a possibility of cordial relationships between a heartland power and a neighboring industrial state with the technology to challenge Western sea-power (as the 19th century icon of Western supremacy and culture) - which shows that the specific nationality of a heartland power is interchangeable:
"Were the Chinese, for instance, organized by the Japanese to overthrow the Russian empire and to conquer its territory, they might constitute the yellow peril to the world's freedom *just* *because* *they* *would* *add* an *oceanic* *frontage* *to* *the* *resources* *of* *the* great *continent* , an advantage as yet denied to the Russian tenant of the pivot region."
Which explains the propagandistic value of the *Molotov-Ribbentrop* *Pact* of 1939 when the Soviet-Union supported an anti-Western, belligerent Nazi-Germany with a constant supply of oil in return for German 'state of the art' cruiser technology.
(compare the heated debate on the *'Nord* *Stream'* gas pipeline, directly connecting a recently unified, booming Germany and a diplomatically isolated Russia)
th-cam.com/video/xFmltgyPLpE/w-d-xo.html
A crucial factor that is not explicitly stated in calculations on transport cost is the utter importance of the Suez Canal - it's ancient forerunner, the 'Canal of the Pharaohs' was also of interest to Alexander the Great. If the Canal would be rendered unusable by some means, the role of some form of railway (e.g. 'transrapid') along the ancient *Silk* *Road* could increase again (a revival of the 15th century situation) - while maritime trade would be fragmented into trans-atlantic and pacific shipping (although connected by the US controlled Panama Canal).
As the failed maintenance of the Salekhard-Igarka Railway along the northern polar circle (1947-1953) has shown the difficulty of traversing extreme wilderness by rail, a northern sea-route, bypassing a blocked Suez Canal would have to depend on significant global warming in order to be profitable. But such a scenario would shift the complete equation in the favour of sea-powers due to maritime accessibility (also potentially benefit the trade and modernization of a formerly 'land-locked', 'traditionalist' Russia).
brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/140636/Chernova.pdf?sequence
*Grand* *strategy* - often bound to some sweeping *'philosophy* *of* *history'* - is not meant to be a manual for daily policy, but provides a lasting orientation across generations, clearing some confusion of naturally conflicting interests (e.g. economic policies towards an 'agrarian state' or 'industrial state').
On the other hand, if a national strategy is too idealized - like the naval arms program of the 'continental' German Empire, expecting further industrialization and hoping to exploit the Great Game between the British Empire and the Russian Empire (thereby imitating the classical English, 'insular' 'balance of power' strategy), the rather average leadership will become confused and will ultimately be reduced to mere reacting to global events - as during the summer of 1914 when the German fleet was still years from completion and the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 had just reversed the trend of colonial expansion within international affairs.
th-cam.com/video/WY-kcPQRpHc/w-d-xo.html
how has your channel not blown up
Funny thing: A theory with many flaws, but lots of influence.
It only needs the "right" people to promote it.
Not the 'right' person, but Alexandre Dugin has elaborated on this theory in relation to contemporary Russia. See his Foundations of Geopolitics. It has been quite influential among Russian elites and explains much of their current behaviour, e.g. invasion of Ukraine.
What is that "BSH, BSK" labeled area around Afganistan at 7:05.
It’s the Koppen system: hot + cold semi-arid climates
@@StrategyStuff Thanks a lot.
It is not a good strategy thesis. It is more of academic exercise than something to consider seriously. The main issue is that it relies on an unicorn nation being able to conquer the entire world. In human history were never was such a nation which would make this theses actually realistic. Thus, it is more of a thought experiment than anything else.
Then there are details. Why Outer islands are assumed to be inferior in resources? USA, Australia, rest of Americas. That is half of the world right there.
Why does it mean an automatic loss? Transporting vast armies through an ocean for globe conquest is completely infeasible. Professor just had a brain fart and did not put any thought to considerations which would self-debunk its theory.
How conquering translates directly to more resources? It is not Hearts of Iron, but this theory considers world to function just in a same way. A conqueror has to manage conquered lands. People will resist. People will not cooperate. It is an exception when a conquered nation becomes more productive than prior to the war. The more aggressor state expands, the less efficient it becomes.
There is also no serious consideration of logistical transportation. Moving through the land is made trivial in this thesis. Attacking through the sea is trivial. That is just so incorrect and laughable.
It is not even right on a smaller scale. Europe is made of flat terrain, but no power had ever came to dominate the region completely in its history.
5:10 Mackinder draws a map which excludes Britain & Ireland out of the "Rimlands", then goes on to describe a Rimland politics (basically, "seapower") which was defined by Britain almost singlehandedly (the "Columban Age").
At one point the heartland thesis was put to the test. The Soviet Union and Communist China in through they’re cooperation were this power. And yet it still failed to the West. I thinks there’s a lot of factors that make the comparison not perfect. But I think it just shows geography isn’t everything
or the theory was not sound, its basic premiss (that rail would become cheaper than water transport) did not materialise in the cold war, and has yet to even now. untill rail (or some other land transport) becomes cheaper than water geography will favour rimlanders.
I guess you must be from the alternative reality where the Sino-Soviet split didn't happen
@@voland6846 Long terms the relationship didn’t work out, but if the theory was to be believe it should have.
Absolutely fantastic as always. Please make Mahan next!
You must be a mind reader, cause that IS in fact what I am doing next.
It's a very early twentieth century sort of idea, isn't it?
Great video! I wonder if any of these modern geopolitical theories still hold up in a post-modern, internet age world
This theory is absolutely insane and even if you view it contemporarily, its pretty ludicrous. In the early 1900s new resource deposits and methods of extraction were being found like wildfire. The oil deposits of the Middle East werent tappable until well into the 1940s, but have since become the largest deposits on Earth, and the same is true for a myriad of other natural resources, though oil is indisputably the king.
Another problem is that geographically, the insulation of terrain works against the “Heartland”. The US has been able to dominate precisely because of its oceans; it is completely open to global trade via access to the Atlantic and Pacific, giving it the ability to project power and export goods from a continent while also preserving its security with as little as a strong navy.
The theory is kind of a product of its time and the outlook people had about resources and power, and the exclusion of the developing world in favor of analyzing the untapped resources in Russia has completely bit this theory in the ass.
Right or wrong, it really makes you question why every single power in
human history attempted to move into those specific spots at any given time.
I know it sounds like the whole globe, but even most prominent examples such
as Germany, France, Teutonic order... many attempted etc.
Russia dropped the ball. Doesn't matter how fertile your land and how wealthy your minerals and oil, if your government is corrupt and unwilling to grow the pie, your nation fails. Russia could have 300-400 million people with high per capita GDP. But communism brought 70 years of failure. Post USSR we have 30 years of stealing the pie, where the rich kept everything and left the poor only vodka and misery.
TLDR, doesn't matter how good your military strategy is if your economics sucks.
remind of a comment somewhere, russia have what it takes for another economic miracle comparable to what China did, yet they just wasted it all
@Àdy You can google GDP, so, no russia's economy is not close to Germany. Germany is 3.8 trillion, Russia is 1.4 trillion.
Man, this takes me back to one of my favourite modules at university!
That slide at th-cam.com/video/ZL8TLiOcF6c/w-d-xo.html is exactly what's going on right now!
What was the truck using to pull a truck with 1 ton load for 59 miles a gallon?
It is exactly a century since Halford Mackinder propounded his famous thesis -"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world." The whole of Eastern (half of) Europe is Russia - from Kanin's Nos on White Sea to tongue of Arabat on Black Sea. And what is the population proportionately?
The chief flaw in his thesis was (is) that he didn't consider Population is a potent factor too. It is as if Population isn't a geographical factor as per him - that too, soon after WW I. Untrammeled application of his thesis leads to weird results. In fact the (immediate) Rimlands, liberally endowed with populations, projected far more power than the thesis suggests - either by the White people or the Yellow people now. Japan defeated Russia in 1905 decisively in a naval battle, simply because the heartland overreached itself, in starting a battle.
Are Rimlands interested in the Heartland? The peripheral Rimlands if ever, are not interested in the Heartland really, because much of it is inhospitable with climatic extremes, (agriculturally) unproductive and hard to conquer as proved by Napoleon & Hitler - the two great conquerors in modern times. Under attack, the very vastness of Heartland (coupled with harsh climate) was its insurance from foreign attacks. A conqueror (of land) needs to hold the land for all time after invading it - not possible with the Heartland (Russia). On the contrary any forays into adjacent Rimlands by the Heartland were largely unsuccessful.
Heartland also suffers from a severe disadvantage like no other big country - that of irrelevance as a Maritime power. Now Russia (it has been always so even from Czar regime & USSR times) is the most maritime-disadvantaged country, with the longest coast-line ! The advantage rests always with Maritime countries as 71% land is (world) Ocean that sets the template for climates on land, not often appreciated by Geographers. The whole land area put together is a little above 29%, while one of the three Oceans - the 'Pacific' at 35% surface area - is bigger than all the land area put together. The 10 biggest countries possessing half the land surface of the Earth, mostly are big maritime countries except the two Heartland countries of them - Russia (the largest) & the land locked Kazakhstan. In fact most in the West, can't imagine the sizes of lands except by their populations.
Only advantage that the Heartland offers to humanity is its vast land to house the people from overpopulated lands. It is why Hitler attacked USSR, eyeing its vast territory for his burgeoning German people ('Lebensraum') and failed (predictably) for want of matching resources to win the War. It is so because of the sparseness that kept it underdeveloped (Russia is 130 times the size of Bangladesh, but has lesser population than it). This might yet come true in future, by a gradual & peaceful process.
Should this discourage connecting east and west with cross-continental high speed rail straight through Mongolia and Russia?
If Risk taught me anything, Australia is much more useful to possess.
A fairly good sign that the game is a poor proxy for geopolitical power distribution
Not related to the video, your goodbyes at the end of your video being short and to the point and not asking for subscribers are one of the reasons I subscribed.
He who owns the Sealanes, controls TRADE.
and he who controls Trade, controls the flow of MONEY.
This is why landlocked countries are poorer than sea/coastal nations.
The world Island is a v v v v v POOR place.
That can very easily change.
Switzerland laughs in the distance
@@sulphuric_glue4468 Switzerland is very close to Italy who is Mediterranean country, it has the Rhine to transport stuff from Holland and Northern Sea, it is connected with France and Atlantic. So Switzerland is connected with 3 seas.
The Somali pirates understood this too bluntly.
@@bloodfiredrake7259 no it cannot easily change
Worth watch and informative == thanks
this is basically Land Power vs Sea Power. people who live in inner continent are conservative, those who live in coastal areas are liberal.
not true whatsoever
Wow, the explanatory power of this model is considerable. So much history makes sense from this model. Look at not only the Mongol & Turkish ascendancies but also the Huns as well. Repeated waves of aggression against the more developed rim nations, yet those central empires soon collapse.
it is quite obvious that George Orwell was familiar w/ this model & used it create his dystopian fantasy.
What is up with people arguing whether this theory is "right" or "wrong?" The world cannot be defined so simply. There are layers and nuances and perspectives. Go study some philosophy and try to argue whether Kant or Hume is "right." Good luck with that.
the mercator projection makes the heartland look more significant than it is.
Muh "nothing is really true, maaan"
Such an anti-intellectual and lazy position.
Isn't the whole point of argument and theory to try and say if an idea is right or wrong? We have to take some kind of action inevitably, even inaction, so it makes that it would first be informed by thought. If the theory holds water, it has implications for foreign policy and how we evaluate nations.
Philosophy is all about argument, all about saying what is right or wrong. The debate may never end, sure, but if one takes a philosophy to be of sound argument and it has implications for how one acts, then one should follow it, no? And not reaching a conclusion on its soundness and implications means that they cannot inform action.
I agree that it's not so easy, but to me that's only more motivation to argue thoughtfully.
So could we see the propagation of the extremely inefficient automobile as the main form of land transportation as a major endeavor of the rim lands in an attempt to hold onto power ?
Exactly the strategy China is now using.
What is your opinion on the new explorations of the American Heartland Ideas, as well as the proposed regions being more located towards India? To me, with the introduction of high speed aircraft, this does seem like a good recharacterisation.
I’ve not delved deep into US Heartland theory, but a cursory glance seems to indicate that it’s a sound theory, if not necessarily one that follows Ms thinking. Ms theory is more than just “secure, self contained landmass”, the advantages of which were already obvious in the 19C. One of Ms key assumptions was that land transport would eventually achieve comparable efficiencies with sea transport, in which case the central position of Heart to the Rim would give the H power the ability to invade and fortify R before any R or American power could intervene. It’s the reason why M saw RUS as having more potential than US, despite the latters demonstrable economic might by 1900s. So far M had been wrong in his land tech assumption, but it’s a core part of his theory and without it Hland theory is pretty banal.
As for India or any modern applications of Hland theory, I will say that the advent of intercontinental missiles + preference for specialised/non-military solutions instead of large armies have considerably negated the security benefits that geography can bring. So you’re not getting the “cost efficiencies” that M once saw the Hland theory having, which means it’s back to seeing who has more resources. India probably has those resources but i think there are better ways to analyze its potential than Hland theory.
@@StrategyStuff Absolutely, Mostly been looking at Ms theory due to a lot of others use of it while analyzing the region. The idea of the US Heartland also fails in acknowledging the idea of vulnerabilities, making it incomplete at best.
To be honest, I do see Spykmans work as being the most applicable to India and the region in general.
The single greatest criticism of this has been the past twenty years, the rimlands dominate and the heart lands are an impovrished zone
Also the entire idea of geographic defense is quickly becoming obsolete due to technology.
Carriers can deploy aircraft from any point on the sea.
Subs can appear anywhere without warning.
Balistic missiles / ICBMs take a slight detour through space to land litterally anywhere with their nuclear payload. (These are often places on those above mentioned nuclear submarines)
Modern aircraft can fly refuel mid flight and missions have been flown from the mainland USA to the middle east and back.
Not to mention the absolute destruction a satellite with actual weapons could do. (These are currently banned by international treaty but any space power like the USA could feasibly make one quickly, not that we don't already have the power to wipe humanity off the earth several times over)
And from a soft power standpoint, water is simply the most efficient means of transport and air the fastest, land based transportation just doesn't keep up for long distance trips of say 4hrs of highway driving or more.
@@jasonreed7522 carriers can not in fact deploy any of their aircraft deep into Eurasia.
Why do people forget that things take time to travel. And the longer any object is traveling. Means that they are more prone to being detected and stopped.
The US can not actually go anywhere near Russian or Chinese lands, because US relies heavily on naval and air superiority, which they won't have if they ever tried to attack China or Russia, so the US never will attempt to do that outside of Eastern Europe [cough ukraine cough].
In fact the US will quickly lose their naval and air dominance and become a sitting duck while being prodded from every single direction except from Canada. As the midwest/central plains region is the heartland of the America's. But the American world-island is vastly inferior to the Eurasia world-island.
And the only reason the heartlands are poor and impoverished is primarily because the rimlands are so rich in comparison. Global free trade and markets has only recently vastly enriched the rimlands. Before then, they were honestly the same. But it's only a matter of time before the heartland nations catch up.
@@sjwoo13 The heart land nations are eastern Europe, they will never catch up also "
The US can not actually go anywhere near Russian or Chinese lands" they already do this all the time, if the US goes to war with china, we will have japan, vietnam,korea,india etc to use as leaping off points, for russia we will have europe.
Not just the last twenty years, the last twenty thousand years.
Highly relevant in today's world.
To all smartasses who think this thesis is wrong, it's not. No power ever controlled whole of the hearlands, only two were close, and that was Mongols and USSR. And Mongols collapsed due to infighting, while USSR was stopped by combined forces of the west. Plus it's not a given that the heartland controller will conquer the world, it's only the possibility.
Also, I would add, that America has it's own heartland, and it already dominates the world. It is a country, called USA.
Great video. Can you make something on Spykeman's view on these assumptions?
Yeah I plan on doing all the major geopolitical names at some point. I’m currently doing Eurasianism + Dugin at the moment but expect Spykman (and perhaps similar Atlanticists) in this channels future.
MacKinder's thesis proved far more accurate and devastating than Mahan's ever did.
Strange that the Rimlands superpower USA doesn't have any high speed train??? It's far fetched but it might be related to this thesis?!
Haha trucks powered oil from rim world Arabia go brrr
Now the NATO vs Russia war for Ukraine makes sense
You can’t defeat the heartland but you can collapse the heartland on itself
"With *technology* , rain-forests could sustain high populations."
Ironic
how
Well explained! Thank you mate 😊
I knew them Russkis were up to no good.
Maybe it isn't an accident that throughout history, no power had ever been able to assert power over all of Eurasia. Even in North America, a much smaller continent, there's a huge political divide between the coasts and the center at present (both in the US and Canada)--and that's without any ethnic or linguistic divisions. The same thing would be bound to happen on a much larger scale in Eurasia. So it's not surprising that nobody has ever been able to control the whole continent.