Talk:Geopolitik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maps still needed:

• Allies vs. Axis in WWI
• Allies vs. Axis in WWII
• Extent of Germany in 1914
• Extent of Germany during WWII Image:Axis 1941.jpg
• Extent of Hitler's Lebensraum
• Extent of German ethnic and cultural influence
• Mackinder's division of Europe in two
• Mackinder's Heartland
• Mitteleuropa
• Mittelafrika
• Pan-regions

[edit] Terrible Article that could be improved

This article is highly pov and biased. The links made between the political geographers and the Nazi regime are re-purpotrating myths of Allied demonization of geopolitics. This paragraphy alone says it all:

'Its defining charcteristic, differentiating it from American, British, French or other schools of geopolitics, is the inclusion of organic state theory, and a clash of civilizations informed by Social Darwinism. It is perhaps the closest of any school of geostrategy to a purely nationalistic conception of geostrategy, lacking more universal elements'.

This is nonesense. In developing many of its theories, such as clash of civilzations - a term coined by an 1980s american geopolitician - it drew on British and other thought, from people such as Mackinder and some Swedish guy who's name escpaes me.

I don't, unfortunately, have the time at the moment to give to this article, but I do intend to clean it up if no one else does. In paticular, I think:

1. It should be split into two articles, one discussing German nationalism during the two world wars and one discussing Geopolitik - German geopolitics in the run up to and including World War Two
2. This aritcle should be edited to explain that many of criticsims of German geopolitik could be - and are - labeled at geopolitical theoreis accross the world. For a source of this see Gearoid O'Tuthail's Critical Geopolitics.
3. The fact that Hitler's work and the geopolitical theories were quite different should be more emphasised. In invading Russia, Hitler countered his supposed 'guiding' theories as Haushofer had argued that an invasion of Russia was wrong and not necessary. This sort of stuff is mentioned, but should be made more prominenet.

Like I say, I'm happy to edit the article myself, but this is one of the most pov on Wikipedia at the moment and I don't have time (and possibly the full requisit knowledge) to do it myself. Robdurbar 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar, I think you're looking for the Geostrategy and Geopolitics articles. This one only deals with German geopolitik, hence the exclusion of a wide amount of material on geopoliticians in general, such as Alfred Thayer Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Nicholas Spykman, Rudolf Kjellen (the Swede whose name escaped you), etc. As far as the "clash of civilizations" theory by Samuel Huntington, that has nothing to do with this article. I'm not sure why you've brought it up. O'Tuthail's criticisms of Geopolitics ought to go in the main Geopolitics article. Finally, this article does examine the differences between previous German geostrategies and Hitler's, as well as their similarities. Furthermore, every paragraph of this article is fully cited with academic sources. I welcome collaborating on this article with you, but let's be sure we're clear about what we're editing first.—thames 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I mention clash of civilizations as its quoted in the first sentence; I mention the criticisms of geopolitics as this aritcle claims that only german geopolitik is guilty of these things. I agree that it is academiccaly sourced and my initial rant is perhaps over the top; it is really only the intro that I have a problem with; like I say, am a bit busy at the mo, tied up with the rest of my watchlist, but will be happy to help with this article at the weekend; it just icnensed me when i read it. Robdurbar 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mentioned. I must have overlooked that. I look forward to working with you on the article, and to your contributions to a revised lede.—thames 22:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the intro, but I still think that this article is misguided in that it is trying to describe german nationalist policy and a school of geopolitical thought at the same time. Though the two were clearly linked, they cannot be reduced to a whole either; I would suggest splitting the article into two (and its 56KB anyway, so a split isnt that bad an idea). At the moment the main body of the article is trying to tell these two stories at once. Robdurbar 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it does describe actual policy. The whole Hitler section comes from a manuscript he wrote describing his foreign policy goals before WWII. It's his strategy, not his policy.—thames 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)