British Maritimism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13835421
British patriots must reject Racism and embrace Geo-Politics.

Geopolitics attempts to explain why some countries have power and other countries do not. The connection between spatial qualities of countries and international relations has been observed since the Greeks (Spencer 42). However, the formal links between geography and political science began about 100 years ago.

In 1890 Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote The Influence of Sea Power upon Hisory, Sea power was necessary to facilitate trade and peaceful commerce, therefore Mahan believed that the country that possessed power would be one that could control the seas. Thus, the development of a strong navy was an essential ingredient to a powerful state as was the country's location. He believed that the country with the most power would be one whose relative location was accessible and connected with a long coastline and good harbours. Mahan saw power as belonging north of the Suez and Panama Canals.

Sir Halford Mackinder proposed what would become the most widely discussed concept of geopolitical studies. Mackinder was interested in political motion and he observed that the spatial distribution of strategic opportunities in the world was unequal. Mackinder's thesis, developed in his 1904 book Democratic ideals and Reality, disregarded Mahan's theory. Advances in technology were forcing a reevaluation of spatial concepts and military strategies. With the advent of railroads, countries no longer depended on the navy to move large armies. Thus, Mackinder believed that the focus of warfare would be shifted from the sea to the hinterland (interiors). Mackinder developed a "pivot area" which was the northern and interior parts of the Eurasian continent where the rivers flow to the Arctic or to salt seas and lakes. He believed that with the advent of railroads, this area would be pivotal as it would be easy to defend and hard to conquer. Later, he called the pivot area the "Heartland" and devised his famous Heartland Theory: "He who controls the Heartland controls the World Island (Eurasia and Africa); He who controls the World Island, controls the world." Mackinder anticipated that Germany would be a threat to controlling the resources of Eastern Europe and the Heartland.

General Karl Hauschofer was a leading proponent of Mackinder's Heartland Theory and he developed a theory of pan regions. Hauschofer divided the world into three pan regions which were blocs of power based on complementarily between the North and South. The Northern core region was connected to a Southern periphery. The three pan regions were Anglo America and its periphery, Latin America; Europe (controlled by Germany) and its periphery, Africa and India; and Japan and its periphery, Southeast Asia. Hauschofer began teaching in Munich during World War I and it was here that Rudolf Hess heard Hauschofer's lectures and later introduced him to Adolph Hitler Hitler, ignoring the subtleties of Hauschofer's teaching, used these theories to advance the Nazi cause of world domination. The Nazi's,used quasi-scientific justification based on the works of Hauschofer and Ratzel as justification for territorial expansion.

The idea of pan-regions appears a superior development on Mackinder’s Heartland idea, but Haushoffer’s theory had two great flaws. The first was to classify Britain and America as one and the same, the second was naming Africa as the periphery of Europe (Germany) rather than that of Britain. As the interface between European civilisation and the maritime world, Britain uniquely has had the mission of creating a trans-continental maritime order.

Africa is Britain’s periphery, but the relationship does not have to be exploitative. Mutual advantage is possible and the sea is the key to this advantage. Mackinder was wrong to classify Africa as part of the World Island, sub-Saharan Africa is as surely dis-joined from this geo-political concept as is Britain. Yet both regions, Britain and Africa, are linked by the dynamic of this maritime civilisation putting to sea and and dominating the Atlantic seaways.
#13835432
You're obviously anti-British. Maritimism isn't about the re-establishment of the British Empire, things have moved on that must be recognised. It's about partnership. This wikifeedia article (very sound I'm sure), talks of interfering foreign powers, which ones would you imagine would hinder the project now then? Belgian ambitions in the Congo, lol!
User avatar
By Daktoria
#13835439
Well look, it's more a matter of being realistic than anything. Britons get made fun of plentifully for imperial nostalgia.

I do love playing the British in Victoria because they get machine parts first, but this is the 21st century, not the long 19th. Once India was partitioned and the Suez Crisis was over, there weren't anymore hurrahs to be had.

Do you see any specific way for Britain to become reengaged in modern geopolitical context?
#13835598
Well look, you seem determined to ignore the actual content of my post and to project your own anti-British sentiment on to it, "hurrahs" , what are you talking about? A note of mockery from you I feel, perhaps John Wayne is more your thing.
#13835615
Francis Drakeleigh wrote:You're obviously anti-British. Maritimism isn't about the re-establishment of the British Empire, things have moved on that must be recognised. It's about partnership. This wikifeedia article (very sound I'm sure), talks of interfering foreign powers, which ones would you imagine would hinder the project now then? Belgian ambitions in the Congo, lol!


China, obviously. And the USA. Both countries with an order of magnitude more influence in Africa than Britain.

FD, your OP seems to be about the pre-WW1 situation, and you have in no way shown that you yourself recognise that 'things have moved on'. Transport alone has changed immensely - air transport, the spread of the petrol and diesel engines and thus the importance of roads - since 1890 or 1904. So have world politics; countries just don't enforce their own rules of trade any more by sending in heavily armed warships to threaten people. Since your OP seems about a century out of date, it's not surprising people have responded by talking about history.
User avatar
By Daktoria
#13835655
Francis Drakeleigh wrote:Well look, you seem determined to ignore the actual content of my post and to project your own anti-British sentiment on to it, "hurrahs" , what are you talking about? A note of mockery from you I feel, perhaps John Wayne is more your thing.


Nah bro. You got the wrong countries in mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Pieterszoon_Hein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kruger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Emil_ ... ow-Vorbeck

As for Britain, there is one fellow more than all the others who I keep in mind for his loyalty to Austria in the 18th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Churc ... arlborough

If there's any American who deserves reference though, it's this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham
#13835698
countries just don't enforce their own rules of trade any more by sending in heavily armed warships to threaten people
- don't they?
Anyway, it appears we've got another one who can't read, where I implore you to tell me, did I write anything about armed warships to threaten people? Do you understand the word "partnership"? The simple answer is that I didn't of course. A sizeable proportion of trade in manufactures and raw materials still moves by sea and the British Merchant Navy has been systematically run down, not for lack of potential cargo I assure you. Roads have their part to play, but are plainly more important for continental systems like the USA or the EU, for a maritime system the sea is still the artery.
#13835710
don't they?


Well, when military force is used (eg Iraq), navies are just mobile aircraft platforms. But that's for the occasional chastisement of individual rogue countries. When it comes to dominating commerce with Africa, China is not using a navy at all.

I implore you to tell me, did I write anything about armed warships to threaten people?


Sea power was necessary to facilitate trade and peaceful commerce, therefore Mahan believed that the country that possessed power would be one that could control the seas. Thus, the development of a strong navy was an essential ingredient to a powerful state as was the country's location.

the British Merchant Navy has been systematically run down, not for lack of potential cargo I assure you


It's been out-competed, when everyone else realised that they didn't need a huge armed navy behind a merchant navy. You ask 'do you understand the word "partnership"?' Why should other countries choose to partner with Britain, a small country with less than 1% of the world's population, for a significant part of their commerce? Back in the 19th century, it was because Britain had the strongest (armed) navy, and used it to keep unruly elements in line - including forcible trade (eg with China). But that advantage, which came from a combination of innovation, organisation, patriotism and opportunism, was always going to fade.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

I have never been wacko at anything. I never thou[…]

no , i am not gonna do it. her grandfather was a[…]

did you know it ? shocking information , any comme[…]