H

Heartland Theory

A theory ofgeopoliticsproposed by J. Halford MacKinder at the beginning of the

20th century. MacKinder taught geography at Oxford University and served in

the British parliament for 12 years and was well connected to the policymakers

and strategic thinkers of his time. Great Britain was still the world’s foremost

power when MacKinder put forth his ideas, and it is clear that he viewed British

imperialismas the most moral and just among the European empires. It is likely

that he was deeply influenced by notions of the “Great Game” between Russia and

Great Britain that had motivated British policy in south Asia during the second half

of the 19th century. MacKinder believed that the heartland theory was in reality a

roadmap to global domination in an age when Britain’s preeminent position in

international affairs was being challenged by emerging powers such as Germany

and Russia. His ideas are firmly rooted interritoriality, as he held that control of

a key geographic space was essential to political power.

MacKinder first publicly presented his theory to the Royal Geographical Society

(RGS) in 1904. The title of his paper was “The Geographical Pivot of History,”

which was published later the same year. In this discussion MacKinder analyzed

the distinction between, and relative merits of, “land power” versus “sea power.”

Moreover, he sought to identify a larger geographical relationship to historical

events, postulating a “geographical causation in universal history.” He suggested

that the Eurasian landmass was the key to global political power, represented by a

core “pivot region” that encompassed much of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and

extended across northern Russia. This “geographical pivot” region, according to

the theory, had been from ancient times the key to territorial control of greater

Eurasia, although during the “Columbian epoch,” as MacKinder termed the

previous four hundred years, the importance of dominating the pivot region had

temporarily been overshadowed by the rise of sea power. MacKinder acknowledged

that the dominance of the high seas by the English navy had been vital to the

construction of the British Empire, but argued that the development of extensive

railway networks in Asia would offset the advantages of controlling the world’s

sea lanes andchoke points. The Russian empire had begun construction of the

Trans-Siberian Railroad about a decade earlier, and this development very likely

169