For a detailed contrast between Japan and Britain on geography and history, see Peter
J. Woolley,Geography and Japan’s Strategic Choices: From Seclusion to Internationalization
(Dulles: Potomac, 2005), 1–6.
Peter J. Woolley,Japan’s Navy: Politics and Paradox 1971–2000(Boulder: Lynne
Rienner, 2000), 8.
Toshi Yoshihara and James R. Holmes, ‘‘China, a Unified Korea, and Geopolitics,’’Issues
&Studies41, no. 2 (2005): 119–70; Robyn Lim,The Geopolitics of East Asia: The Search for
Equilibrium(London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003).
Duk-ki Kim,Naval Strategy in Northeast Asia: Geo-strategic Goals, Policies and Prospects
(London: Frank Cass, 2003), 168–69.
Mahan,Influence of Sea Power,71. For more on Mahan, see Philip A. Crowl,
‘‘Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Naval Historian,’’ inMakers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli
to the Nuclear Age,ed. Peter Paret, Gordon A. Craig, and Felix Gilbert (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1986), 444–77; Russell F. Weigley,The American Way of
War(New York: Macmillan, 1973), 167–91; Jon Tetsuro Sumida,Inventing Grand Strategy
and Teaching Command: The Classic Works of Alfred Thayer Mahan Reconsidered(Washington,
DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1997), 80–98; Rolf Hobson,Imperialism at Sea:
Naval Strategic Thought, the Ideology of Sea Power and the Tirpitz Plan, 1875–1914(Boston:
Brill Academic Publishers, 2002). On Mahan’s influence outside the United States, see John
B. Hattendorf, ed.,The Influence of History on Mahan(Newport: Naval War College Press,
1991).
Margaret Tuttle Sprout, ‘‘Mahan: Evangelist of Sea Power,’’ inMakers of Modern
Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler,ed. Edward Meade Earle (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1943), 415–45; James R. Holmes, ‘‘Mahan, a ‘Place in the Sun,’
and Germany’s Quest for Sea Power,’’Comparative Strategy23, no. 1 (2004): 27–62.
James R. Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara, ‘‘The Influence of Mahan upon China’s
Maritime Strategy,’’Comparative Strategy24, no. 1 (2005): 53–71; and James R. Holmes
and Toshi Yoshihara, ‘‘Command of the Sea with Chinese Characteristics,’’Orbis49, no. 4
(2005): 677–94.
Alfred Thayer Mahan,The Problem of Asia(New York: Harper’s New Monthly
Magazine, 1900; reprint, Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1970), 15.
Notes one analyst of Mahanian theory, ‘‘Central to the theory of sea power was the
expectation of conflict. When a nation’s prosperity depends on shipborne commerce, and
the amount of trade available is limited, then competition follows, and that leads to a naval
contest to protect the trade.’’ George W. Baer,One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U.S. Navy,
1890–1990(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 12. See also Pekka Korhonen,
‘‘The Pacific Age in World History,’’Journal of World History7, no. 1 (1996): 41–70.
Mahan,Problem of Asia,33.
Ibid., 124.
Ibid., 26, 124.
Mahan,Influence of Sea Power,138.
Alfred Thayer Mahan,The Interest of America in Sea Power, Present and Future(Boston:
Little, Brown, and Company, 1897; reprint, Freeport: Books for Libraries Press, 1970), 198.
Ibid., and Alfred Thayer Mahan,Lessons of the War with Spain,quoted in Sprout,
‘‘Mahan: Evangelist of Sea Power,’’ 433.
