The diplomatic context: Britain and International Relations around 1904

Pascal Venier, « The diplomatic context: Britain and International Relations around 1904 », in Brian W. Blouet (editor), The Geographical Pivot of History: Halford Mackinder and the Defence of the West (London: Frank Cass, 2004). (Frank Cass Geopolitical Theory series).

Research conducted in the history of both geography and geopolitics has stressed the importance of re-situating key texts within their original context (Livingstone, 1992; Ó Tuathail, 1996). Political Geographers such as Brian Blouet, Geroid Ó Tuathail or Gerry Kearns, have demonstrated the interest of an exploration of Mackinder’s thought, set in its precise historical setting (Blouet, 1987; Ó Tuathail 1992; Kearns, 1985). More recently, Geoffrey Sloan has shown a way forward in analysing each of the 1904, 1919, and 1943 versions of Mackinder’s heartland theory, « in the context of the unique periods of their formulation » (Sloan, 1999). This suggests the pertinence of further investigation into the actual diplomatic and strategic context of the historical moment when the Geographical Pivot of History was written, presented as a lecture and eventually published.

The history of international relations in the years before 1914, perhaps more than any other period, has been the subject of considerable scrutiny on account of the importance of the question of the origins of the Great War (Mombauer, 2002). Controversies about the issue of responsibility regarding the outbreak of the war have generated tremendous historical production. The impression of venturing onto well-trodden territory, when engaging in the study of any aspect of the period, can however be extremely deceptive. A major risk in this respect is to read too much into the major developments of the period, in the light of what is now known of the outbreak of the Great War in 1914. The benefit of hindsight is perhaps more than a mixed blessing, and it is essential to remain aware of the power of focus and its potential distorting effects. 

In order to propose a meaningful analysis of a period which is usually described as either one of « geopolitical transition » by political geographers, or as one of « diplomatic revolution » by international historians, it seems essential to be fully aware of both past and current historiographical debates about the history of international relations during this period, and to fully engage with its key issues. This will involve studying particularly the period around 1904 within its own logic, rather than as part of some prelude to the First World War, as well as taking into account the major historiographical revision which has recently taken place in the history of British foreign policy (Neilson, 1995; Wilson, 2003), and which has stressed how central imperial issues were in the formulation of British foreign policy, right until 1914. The proposed snapshot of the diplomatic context of « the Geographical Pivot of History » will involve, firstly, an analysis of the context of international relations and the British geopolitical code at the beginning of the twentieth century; secondly, the examination of the main orientations of Edwardian foreign policy between 1902 and 1904; and finally, will look in some depth at the situation during the winter of 1903-1904.

I. International relations and the British Geopolitical Code in the Early Twentieth Century

Following the Great War, the Old Diplomacy and the regime of alliance of the pre-1914 period have been stigmatised and widely held responsible for the outbreak of the war. A revealing illustration is to be found in a cliché; such as that of « fateful alliance« , widely applied to the Franco-Russian alliance (Kennan, 1984). Such an evocative formula, like so many others now so powerfully anchored, have distorted perceptions of the ways in which the international system operated during the first years of the century. It is therefore necessary, for instance, to stress how, in the 1890s, alliances were defensive in nature, and operated as « blocking coalitions » (Schroeder, 1986, 10). As such, they did contribute decisively to maintaining a balance of power in Europe. This was arguably still the case around 1904. Presenting Europe as being divided between two antagonistic blocks can also be misleading. Not only, at that time, the « Triple and Dual Alliances stood – to modify an apt phrase of Mr. Winston Churchill – side by side, not face to face” (Schmitt, 1924, 451); but thinking about the international system in terms of multipolarity, rather than bipolarity, may give better insight into the way it actually operated. After all, not only was Britain remaining aloof from the two main European alliance systems, but greater fluidity and a more dynamic environment than usually acknowledged, were key features in international relations during the first years of the century. Furthermore, the alliances themselves were showing signs of relative fragility, and « The Triple Alliance undoubtedly passed through a period of ineffectiveness. » (Schmitt, 1924, 452)

One of the most vivid images of the period before 1914 is undoubtedly that of the « struggle for mastery in Europe ». However it does appear rather elusive for the period under study. As Paul Schroeder has noted, « for most of the period covered, up to 1890 or 1900 at least, there was no such struggle for mastery in the sense of a conscious drive to achieve preeminent position and dominant power (Schroeder, 1986, 9). » It could further be argued that this remained a reality as late as 1904. A careful analysis of the main potential clash points between the great powers in the early years of the twentieth century reveals the tuning down of intra-European rivalries: “the two danger-zones of Europe, Alsace-Lorraine and the Near East, were relatively quiet. » (Schmitt, 1924, 451) From the mid-1890s, a climate of détente prevailed in Franco-German relations, whilst the 1897 agreement between Russia and the Habsburg Empire opened a period of relative quietude. A shift of tensions from within Europe to the wider world took place in the 1890s. Greater stability in Europe corresponded with the unleashing of imperial rivalry overseas, as European powers such as such as Britain, Russia and France, soon joined by Germany, and extra-European powers such as the United States and Japan, competed for world positions. The so-called New Imperialism and doctrines of power politics and world policy were the order of the day, whilst the Far East was often taking centre stage in international relations.

Analysing Britain’s geopolitical codes proves to be a stimulating starting point. Political geographers define a geopolitical code as « a set of strategic assumptions that a government makes about other states in forming its foreign policy » (Taylor, 1993; Dijink, 1996). This usually incorporates « a definition of a state’s interests, an identification of external threats to those interests, a planned response to such threats, and a justification of that response. » Any definition of British interests, during the Edwardian period as during the Victorian period, must start with issues pertaining to trade. In an international economy based upon overseas trade, preserving the safety of sea routes was essential, all the more so as Britain was reliant on imports for its domestic consumption, and for ensuring access to foreign markets. Hence Britain’s keenness regarding the « open door » policy in China, which was preserved. The security of the British Isles and of the Empire was also of great importance. This involved ensuring that Britain remained protected from the risk of invasion, a permanent source of concern, giving rise periodically to recurrent invasion scares. Another crucial issue was the integrity of imperial frontiers, a task of gigantic proportions, as Britain had « by far the greatest extent of territorial Frontier of any dominion in the globe« : over 12,000 miles of frontiers in Africa, more than 3,000 miles of frontier with the United States in Canada and above all India’s frontiers, « nearly 6,000 miles long with Persia, Russia, Afghanistan, Tibet, China, Siam, and France. » (Curzon, 1907, 9) Finally, maintaining the balance of power in Europe could also appear as another vital British interest, and involved denying « continental hegemony to any state or coalition of states, because a hegemonic enemy, undistracted by the need to wage major conflict on land, would have been able to use all or most of western Europe as a base for developing a quantity and quality of seapower fatal to Britain’s ability to command the narrow seas and hence to thwart invasion and protect its maritime commerce”. (Gray, 1988, 15)

The identification of the main threat was not problematic, as Russia, engaged in global rivalry with Britain, was regarded as the traditional enemy. Russian expansionism was of increasing concern to the British government. In particular, the Russians were following an increasingly agressive policy in the Far East.The Boxer rebellion of 1900 and the ensuing European intervention had been an opportunity for Russia to occupy Manchuria in Northern China, which it later refused to evacuate. The British also felt that the security of India was threatened by both Russia’s advance into Central Asia, and her increasing influence in Persia. Of particular note was the construction of the railway line from Orenburg to Samarkand, which was to be completed in 1905. « This line doubled the potential supplies that could be transported into Western Turkestan from Russia in the event of a military expedition from that territorial base. » (Siegel, 2001, 4) The growth of Russian naval assets in the Far East greatly concerned the Admiralty, which feared that « it would be unable to match a Franco-Russian naval combination in the Far East. » (Bartlett, 1993, 96) The rivalry with Russia posed the problem of Imperial defence, which Prime Minister Arthur Balfour described in a speech to the Commons on 8 August 1902 as « one of the most difficult and one of the most complicated problems that any Government or any body of experts, can have. » (Mackay, 1985, 115-6) This was however not the only threat that the Balfour administration could identify, for on account of the Franco-Russian Alliance, any  conflict with Russia could potentially lead to a global struggle against both her and her French ally. Worse still was the risk that Britain would come to face a hostile coalition of continental powers made up of Russia, France and Germany.

British planned responses to threats focused first and foremost on maintaining British worldwide naval supremacy and British command of the seas. Since 1889, the two-power standard had provided an excellent indicator of the adequacy of naval relative strength. The South African war of 1899-1902 had cruelly exposed the weaknesses of the British Army, and reform and modernisation were on the agenda. However, budgetary contraints, the weight of the military bureaucracy, together with the importance of the British political tradition not to maintain a strong standing army in peacetime, were major impediments to the development of the British army to the necessary standards of preparation in the event of a possible Russian challenge on the frontiers of India. Diplomacy was indeed a key element of Britain’s possible response to the perceived main threats. The policy of splendid isolation followed by Salisbury was based on the diplomatic paradigm of the Free Hand (Gooch, 1974, 181). This involved avoiding, as far as possible, becoming party to alliances in peacetime, in order to guarantee Britain’s existing freedom from entanglements (Howard, 1967). The policies followed by Salisbury’s successors at the Foreign Office, Liberal Unionist Lord Lansdowne and Liberal Sir Edward Grey, are conventionally described as marking the end of isolation (Monger, 1963). Nevertheless, besides the 1901 alliance with Japan, renewed in 1905 and 1911, and limited in scope to the Far East, British diplomacy between 1901 and 1914, did stick to the Free Hand paradigm. Landsdowne’s foreign policy aimed at defusing, as much as possible, any risk of conflict for Britain. It involved an active diplomacy, focusing on improving bilateral relations with each of the powers perceived as posing a threat. Niall Ferguson, following in that Sir Michael Howard’s earlier view, has gone as far as interpreting Edwardian foreign policy as, in essence, one of appeasement: it also involved dealing with key issues on a case to case basis, and attempting to bring about, whenever possible, a form of collective security at a regional level (Howard, 1972, 29-30; Fergusson, 1999).

2. Edwardian foreign policy, 1901-1904

In order to get a fair picture of Britain’s position in international affairs around 1904, it is useful to analyse the main dynamics of Edwardian foreign policy at work. A first important development in this respect was the significant improvement of relations with the United States, which had in 1898 asserted, in a very spectacular manner, its status as an imperial power in the Caribbean and the Pacific. This allowed for a transition from a relation of rivalry to one of friendship, and amounted to an informal Anglo-American rapprochement. The US was increasingly determined to strictly enforce a very broad interpretation of the Monroe doctrine, first enunciated in 1823, which involved preventing any European interference on the American continent (Kennedy, 1981, 118). London had for a long time been studiously ignoring such a doctrine, but this proved no longer possible, and following the Anglo-Germano-Italian blockade of Venezuela in 1903, the British came to recognise this (Herwig, 1976, 75). Britain also renounced formally in 1901, her right to claim a share in the construction of the Panama Isthmian Canal and two years later the Alaskan boundary dispute was settled favourably for American claims. This evolution allowed a British strategical withdrawal from the Western Hemisphere. 

In the Far East, upholding British interests alone and ensuring the maintaining of the « open door » policy deemed crucial in China, had become increasingly difficult due to Russian expansionism. Having initially explored the possibility of a diplomatic understanding with both Germany and Japan, Lansdowne finally came to sign an agreement with the latter alone. He did so under pressure and in order to preempt a Russo-Japanese rapprochement, which seemed imminent and which would have isolated Britain disastrously in the region (Monger, 1963, 56). Ian Nish has demonstrated very clearly how « Britain entered into the alliance largely by reason of her eastern rather than her European interests (Nish, 1966, 231). » The Agreements between Great Britain and Japan of 30 January 1902, in substance a military alliance, by which which each power was bound to belligerence in a war between their ally and any two other powers, were strictly limited in scope to the Far East.

This Far Eastern commitment marked a striking departure from the usual British foreign policy praxis not to firmly commit in advance. Its positive effects for Britain were clear, preventing isolation in the region and contributing to alleviate the pressure on the Royal Navy’s commitments. The alliance designed to bring about greater stability in the region, however, did not operate in such a way. It proved unable to prevent the rise of tension between Russia and Japan. It was soon feared that it could backfire, as the risk of the casus fœderis arising, and of Britain being drawn in a war, was becoming real. Not simply a local war but a global war, if a third power, most likely France, became involved against Japan in support of Russia.

If the period preceding the outbreak of the Great War has been marked by the rise of Anglo-German rivalry, it is essential to bear in mind that relations between the two powers were far from hostile in the period before 190

5; much to the contrary. Britain had indeed welcomed the foundation of the German Empire in 1871, as Germany’s « half-hegemony » in Europe established a balance of power (Schroeder, 1986, 9). Furthermore, between 1898 and 1901, several attempts to bring about an alliance with German took place. However, they came to nothing. Fundamentally, Germany feared that such an alliance might result in a situation where it would have to face the Franco-Russians alone on the continent (McLean, 2001, 91); whilst Britain objected, as Monger put it, « as a parliamentary country, she could not to commit herself in advance (Monger, 1963, 63). »

The momentum for an alliance with Germany quickly passed, but maintaining good working relations with Berlin remained nevertheless a priority for London. Prime Minister Arthur Balfour remained convinced of the identity of interests between the two powers. (Kennedy, 1980, 255) The unpredictability of the Kaiser, who had acquired a justified reputation as a tactless trimmer, naturally inspired a degree of caution. As ruling out the possibility of collaboration with Germany would have significantly limited Britain’s freedom of action, this was clearly not on. (Kennedy, 1980, 256; Much to the contrary, not only did the two powers undertake, together with Italy, a joint naval blockade of Venezuela in 1902, but furthermore the following year, they actively explored the possibility of jointly financing the extension of the Baghdad railway project; a smart way, in Lansdowne’s view, to prevent further Russian penetration in the Middle East. (Morris, 1984, 55) The British government was however, in each instance, forced to back track because of the rush of popular Germanophobia such ventures caused (Kennedy, 1980, 256).

It has sometimes been suggested that the threat posed by the German fleet became, as early as 1902, a key factor in British policy making, but it is difficult to follow this interpretation. Germany’s aim was, indeed, to become the second naval power in the world. (Sondhaus, 2001, 181) However, the superiority of the Royal Navy over the German navy, which was still in its infancy, remained overwhelming, not only in 1902-4, but for many years after 1905. (Lambert, 1999, 8 ) Significantly, when First Lord of the Admiralty Selborne expressed, in 1902, some concern about the on-going development of the German navy, Balfour did remain « somewhat sceptical ». (Kennedy, 1980, 255) It seems important to stress that Germany was only perceived as realistically posing a threat as part of an anti-British coalition. As a counter to this, in 1902 the Admiralty pressed for the two-power standard, plus an extra six battleships over and above the straight parity with France and Russia”. (Bartlett, 1993, 99)

Britain’s policy towards the two partners of the Franco-Russian alliance was extremely crucial in this period.  Russia remained Britain’s traditional enemy and the problem of the defence of India remained a very sensitive issue in London. In late 1901, Lansdowne had explored the possibility of an understanding with Russia, before settling under pressure for the alliance with Japan. The Balfour cabinet remained nevertheless extremely keen, and at times even desperate, to reach an understanding with Russia on outstanding Asian issues. (Kennedy, 1980, 255) In the summer of 1903, the expansionist party seemed to gain increasing influence over the Tsar. A Viceroyalty of the Far East was created on 13 August 1903, and Witte, the finance minister, resigned within a fortnight. As the tension between Russia and Japan was increasing in the Far East, London again sought an agreement with Russia, but to no avail (Neilson, 1995).

It is very tempting to see in Lansdowne’s handling of relations with the Franco-Russian alliance, an urge to follow a policy of reinsurance, designed to avoid the dangers inherent to the Far Eastern commitment. A parallel could be made with the policy of Bismarck who, after signing a defensive alliance treaty with Austria-Hungary in 1879, brought about the League of the Three Emperors in 1881, and after it lapsed concluded the Reinsurance treaty of 1887 (Woodward, 1935, 68). Lansdowne came to think that an improvement of relations with France could lead to have positive effects on Anglo-Russian relations. He revealingly observed in September 1903 that « A good understanding with France would not improbably be the precursor of a better understanding with Russia, and I need not insist upon the improvement which would result in our international position » (Monger, 1963, 133). It is however generally accepted that from the start of his period as French Foreign Secretary, Théophile Delcassé’s grand design was to bring about a coalition between France, Britain and Russia (Andrew, 1968, 228). A difficulty for the French was to conciliate a possible restoration of the Entente cordiale with her alliance with Russia.

Between 1902 and 1904, Franco-British relations evolved, as Edward Grey aptly put it in a speech to the Commons on 1 June 1904, from a « glacial epoch » to a « genial epoch« . (Grey, 1931, 21-2) French and British interests seemed to converge. Financial ties in particular contributed significantly to the two powers coming closer together, as the City remained dependant on French capital. (Saul, 1997, 666) From a strategic perspective, the Anglo-Japanese alliance had seriously undermined the security of French Indochina, but whilst the overall balance of naval power with France had undoubtedly evolved in Britain’s favour, it remained that the French naval policy of concentration in the Mediterranean had crucially modified the equilibrium in the Mediterranean. The rapprochement of 1903 was marked by an exchange of visits by King Edward VII and President Loubet in May and July 1903, and steps were soon taken to open negotiations on the main outstanding colonial dispute between the two imperial powers. (Andrew, 1968)

* * *

To complete this analysis of Britain’s international position at the time when « The Geographical Pivot of History » was conceived by Halford Mackinder, in the winter of 1903-1904, it seems useful to consider the two key elements of this context: the on-going rethinking of British defence policy and the implications of the developing Far Eastern crisis for British  diplomacy.

Following the Boer war a major reevaluation of defence policy was  undertaken. A painstaking assessment of the Army performance was conducted by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the South African war, or Elgin Commission, which highlighted the need to reorganise the War Office. (Kennedy, 1981, 63) Such a reorganisation was however extremely slow, on account of the complexity of the task, the weight of bureaucracy and the political sensitivity of the issues involved. The War Office Reconstruction Committee, chaired by Lord Esher, which was appointed in September 1903 by Balfour, was in January 1904 finalising the first of the three instalments of its report which led to a thorough reorganisation of the War Office. (Dunlop, 1938, 168-9) At the same time War Secretary Arnold-Forster was in early February 1904  revealing to his colleagues in the cabinet a scheme to reform the Army (Williams, 1991, 45). With the acute budgetary crisis faced by the British government and the prospect of a large deficit in the coming year, it was vital considerably reduce defence spending (Mackay, 1985, 160-1) The Committee of Imperial Defence, set up in October 1903 by Prime Minister Balfour, had undertaken a systematic analysis of imperial defence requirements. An investigation into the invasion issue was conducted, and in November 1903 the committee deemed the possibility of a large-scale invasion of the British Isles most unlikely. This assessment was of great importance, as it subsequently informed the study of imperial defence requirements and a triumph for the blue-water school. (Bond, 1972, 198; Gooch, 1974, 177) The clear consensus was that the Empire was most vulnerable in India, « our only possible place of contact with a great European Army« , as Arnold-Foster put it in his speech on the Army Estimates on 7 March 1904 (Dunlop, 1938, 172), and the main strategic problem remained the question of the defence of the North West frontier. (Bond, 1972, 198) Prime Minister Arthur Balfour summarized very effectively, in a letter to Edouard VII on 14 December 1903, what military policy should be: « The object to be aimed at may be roughly summarized as follows: we want an army which shall give us sufficient force for at least any immediate need of Indian defence; and, in conjonction with the auxiliary forces, for Home defence; which shall be capable of expansion in time of national emergency … and shall throw a smaller burden on the tax payer. This last is of peculiar importance, not merely because of the present condition of our finances, but because the demands of the navy are so great and so inevitable that the total cost of imperial defence threatens to become prohibitive. » (Williams, 1991, 44)

The development of the Russo-Japanese crisis in the Far East placed Britain in a rather embarrassing situation. What had been Balfour’s worst fear in December 1901 at a time when the possibility of an agreement with Japan was debated among the cabinet, namely that « we may find ourselves fighting for our own existence in every part of the globe because France has joined forces with her ally over some obscure Russo-Japanese quarrel in Corea [sic] », was becoming a distinct possibility (Monger, 1963, 62). The main shortcoming of the Anglo-Japanese agreement was not only its binding nature, but also the fact that it amounted not simply to a defensive alliance but also to an offensive alliance. Accordingly, the Japanese Imperial Cabinet was left with great freedom of judgement to decide whether Russia was leading a policy of provocation. It does not seem simply incident that between 1904 and 1914, successive British administrations, Tory and Liberal alike, stayed clear from entering any new alliance in peace time, much to the French despair.

The development of the crisis led the British government to take diplomatic precautionary steps to avoid been drawn into the conflict, which involved active diplomatic collaboration with France. The convergence of views on this matter became quickly apparent as French foreign secretary Théophile Delcassé shared similar concerns. Both realised how easily their respective existing alliances with Russia and Japan could lead them to become involved in the coming conflict. A Franco-British attempt at mediation between the two parties came to none as the Japanese attacked Port Arthur on 8 February 1904. After the outbreak of war, the two powers promptly engaged in close diplomatic collaboration to attempt to localise the conflict, by remaining strictly neutral.

The conflict gave momentum to the Franco-British discussions and both parties became convinced of the pertinence of promptly to reaching a timely settlement of their imperial disputes, on 8 April, two months day for day after the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war. This would be the starting point  for the Franco-British Entente cordiale (Keiger, 2001, 164-168).  

References

Andrew, C, 1968. Théophile  Delcassé and the Making of the Entente Cordiale. A Reappraisal of French Foreign Policy. 1898-1905, London, Macmillan.

Bartlett, C., 1993. Defence and Diplomacy: Britain and the Great Powers, 1815-1914, MUP, Manchester.

Blouet, B., 1987. Halford Mackinder: a Biography, Texas A & M Press, College Station, Texas.

Bond B., 1972, The Victorian Army and the Staff College,1854-1914, Eyre Methuen, London.

Curzon, N, 1907. Frontiers, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Dijink, G., 1996. National Identity and Geopolitical visions: Maps of Pride and Pain, Routledge, London.

Dunlop, J., 1938. The Development of the British Army, 1899-1914. From the eve of the South African War to the eve of the Great War, Methuen: London.

Ferguson, N., 1999. The Pity of War, Penguin, London.

Gooch, J., 1974. The plans of War: the General Staff and British Military Strategy, c.1900-1916, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Gray, C, 1988. The Geopolitics of Superpower, UP Kentucky, Lexington.

Grey, E, 1931. Speeches on Foreign Affairs, 1904-1914. G. Allen and Unwin, London.

Herwig, H., 1976. Politics of Frustration: The United States in German Strategic Planning, 1888-1941. Little, Brown, Boston, Mass.

Howard, C., 1967. Splendid isolation, Macmillan, 1967.

Howard, M., 1972. The Continental Commitment, Maurice Temple Smith, London.

Kearns, G., 1985. “Halford John Mackinder, 1861–1947”. Geographers: Biobibliographical Studies, 9, pp. 71–86.

Keiger, J., 2001. France and the World Since 1870, OUP, New York.

Kennan, G, 1984, The Fateful alliance: France, Russia, and the coming of the First World War, MUP, Manchester.

Kennedy, P., 1980. The rise of the Anglo-German antagonism 1860-1914, Allen and Unwin, London.

Kennedy, P., 1981. The Realities Behind Diplomacy: Background Influences on British External Policy, 1865-1980, Fontana, London.

Lambert, N., 1999. Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.

Livingstone, D., 1992. The Geographical Tradition. Episodes in the History of a Contested Enterprise. Oxford, Blackwell.

Mackay, R., 1985. Balfour: Intellectual Statesman, OUP, Oxford.

McLean, R., 2001. Royalty and Diplomacy in Europe, 1890-1914, Cambrige: CUP.

Mombauer, A. The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus. Longman, London.

Monger, G., 1963. The End of Isolation: British Foreign Policy, 1900-1907, Nelson, London. Morris, A., 1984, The scaremongers. the advocacy of war and rearmament 1896-1914, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Neilson, K, 1995, Britain and the Last Tsar, British Policy and Russia, 1894-1917, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Nish, I, 1966. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance: the Diplomacy of Two Island Empires, 1894-1907, Athlone Press, London.

Ó Tuathail, G. 1992, « Putting Mackinder in his Place: Material Transformations and Myth », Political Geography, 1992, 11, pp. 100-118.

Ó Tuathail, G. 1996. Critical geopolitics: the politics of writing global space, Routledge, London

Saul, S., 1997. La France et l’Egypte de 1882 à 1914, Intérêts économiques et implications politiques, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

Schroeder, P, 1986. “The Nineteenth Century International System: Changes in the Structure”, World Politics, Vol. 39, No. 1. (Oct., 1986), pp. 1-26.

Schmitt, B., 1924. “Triple Alliance and Triple Entente, 1902-1914”, The American Historical Review, Vol. 29, No. 3. (Apr., 1924), pp. 449-473.

Siegel, J., 2002. Endgame: Britain, Russia and the Final Struggle for Central Asia, IB Tauris, London.

Sondhaus, L., 2000. Naval Warfare, 1815-1914, Routledge, London.

Sloan, G., « Sir Halford Mackinder: The Heartland Theory Then and Now », in C.S. Gray and G. Sloan, Geopolitics, Geography and Strategy (London: Frank Cass, 1999).

Taylor, P, 1993. Political Geography, World Economy, Nation-State and Locality, Longman, Harlow.

Wilson, K., 2003, Problems and Possibilities, Exercises in Statesmanship 1814-1918, Tempus, Stroud.

Woodward, E., 1935. Great Britain and the German Navy. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

The Geographical Pivot of History and Early Twentieth Century Geopolitical Culture

Preprint of :

Pascal Venier, The Geographical Pivot of History and Early 20th Century Geopolitical Culture, Geographical Journal, vol. 170, no 4, December 2004, pp. 330-336.

On 25 January 1904, the director of the London School of Economics, Halford J. Mackinder gave a lecture on the Geographical Pivot of History at the Royal Geographical Society. In 1887, Mackinder had introduced the teaching of Geography at the University of Oxford, and in this 1904 lecture he was seeking « a formula […] express[ing] certain aspects […] of geographical causation in universal history ». He ventured boldly, but not without taking necessary oratory precautions in developing a “working hypothesis”, which posited that a “pivot zone” or “heart-land”, the vast zone of continental and arctic drainage of Central Asia, had long been the geographical pivot of history, still was and would remain the “pivot of the world’s politics”. Furthermore, he developed the argument that the history of Europe was subordinate to that of Asia. This piece of work, at the crossroads between historical and political geography, can be seen as a stimulating reflection on international affairs, seeking to demonstrate the policy relevance of geography in aiding statecraft.

Much of the recent literature on the history of both geography and geopolitics has stressed the importance of re-situating key texts within their original context (Livingstone, 1992; Ó’Tuathail, 1996). Political Geographers such as Brian Blouet, Gerry Kearns or Geroid Ó’Tuathail have explored Mackinder’s thought, set in its precise context (Blouet, 1987; Ó’Tuathail 1992; Kearns, 1985). International Historian Paul Kennedy showed one way forward in his landmark essay on « Mahan versus Mackinder: Two Interpretations of British Sea Power”(Kennedy, 1983); so has more recently, strategic studies specialist Geoffrey Sloan in analysing each of the 1904, 1919, and 1943 versions of Mackinder’s heartland theory, « in the context of the unique periods of their formulation » (Sloan, 1999). This suggests the pertinence of exploring a fresh perspective on The Geographical Pivot of History – one which sets it in the context of the international relations and strategic debates of the time, and engaging more fully with the historiography of British foreign policy during the Edwardian period.

William H. Parker’s influential interpretation of The Geographical Pivot of History in his classic study Mackinder, Geography as an Aid to Statecraft provides a useful starting point. In this study, he boldly stated that: “One reason why the paper had little impact in 1904, and would have been regarded by the Cabinet – had they heard it – as of little practical value, was that it was concerned with the future rather than the present. And the present had pressing problems of its own, the chief of which was how to contain Germany, not Russia. As for Germany allying herself with Russia, this was not very likely for France had already done so, and Britain was preparing to come to an understanding with her. The immediate danger was from German industrial competition and naval rearmament rather than from landpower in the remote fastnesses of Euroasia.” (Parker, 1982, 159) However, there are major difficulties with such an interpretation, which appears untenable when The Geographical Pivot of History is analysed within its precise historical context.

I.

A close examination of The Geographical Pivot of History, keeping primarily in mind issues pertaining to international relations, reveals that a key dimension of the article was Mackinder’s attempt to pronounce upon Britain’s international position by identifying a number of major potential threats. The first threat was a perceived trend towards a shift in the equilibrium between land power and sea power, which Mackinder feared was turning in favour of the former, eventually resulting in a challenge to the primacy of British world hegemony by the continental powers. The second threat, logically derived from the first, but more immediate, was posed by Russia, “the pivot state »: “Russia replaces the Mongol Empire. Her pressure on Finland, on Scandinavia, on Poland, on Turkey, on Persia, on India, and on China, replaces the centrifugal raids of the steppemen. In the world at large she occupies the central strategical position held by Germany in Europe.” (Mackinder, 1904, 436) It is crucial to note a double mapping of the threats posed by the continental powers. Whilst acknowledging “the central strategical position held by Germany in Europe », Mackinder clearly saw Russia as the major threat, and Germany only as a minor threat. Finally, Mackinder also considered the risk of an alliance of the two main continental powers, Russia and Germany, a major peril for Britain: “The oversetting of the balance of power in favour of the pivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia, would permit the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would then be in sight. This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia”. (Mackinder, 1904, 436) It is important to stress that potential threats identified by Mackinder involved either Russia, or worse Russia and Germany together, but never concerned Germany alone. Resituated within the context of January 1904, the position taken by Mackinder, and his attempt to mobilise the power of geographical scientific knowledge to back his views, represented a strong statement. His emphasis on Russia was firmly in opposition with the position taken by a number of other leading imperialists, such as the director of the National and English Review, Leopold Maxse, a fellow member of the Co-efficients Dining Club, who underlined the German threat. (Hutcheson, 1989; Morris, 1984)

Contrary to W.H. Parker’s argument, the analysis conducted by Mackinder seems remarkably in tune with the thinking of the British decision-makers at the time it was conducted. It is indeed unquestionable that Russia, engaged in worldwide rivalry with Britain, remained for decision-makers in London the principal external threat to her interests. Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, as a strong supporter of the Blue Water school of strategy, held that the British Isles would be best defended by the navy and that the primary purpose of the British army was to contribute to imperial defence. (Mackay, 1985) He therefore, in a time of acute budgetary crisis, further advocated concentration on issues of imperial defence and specifically the defence of India. That his outlook on foreign and defence policy was clearly characterised by “Indocentricity” has been well documented (Williams, 1991; Judd, 1968). During the Army debates of March 1904 in the House of Commons, he stressed the Russian threat to the British empire, stating that “no man can blind himself to the fact that the whole trend of circumstances in the East is to make us a Continental Power conterminous with another Continental Power, and that is the dominating circumstance which we have to take into account in framing our Army Estimates. » (Dunlop, 1938, 172) Undoubtedly, Mackinder was over evaluating the Russian threat, but such an attitude was deeply rooted in Victorian and Edwardian geopolitical culture, sometimes to the point of bordering on paranoia. (Towle, 1980)

If the period leading to the Great War was indeed marked by the rise of Anglo-German rivalry, it is essential to bear in mind that before the First Moroccan crisis in 1905, Britain’s relations with Germany were far from hostile, despite recurrent rushes of popular Germanophobia which erupted at regular intervals. (Kennedy, 1980) After several unsuccessful attempts in 1898-1901, the momentum for an alliance with the German Empire had passed. However, maintaining good working relations with Berlin remained a priority for the British government, and its leader was still convinced of the community of interests between Britain and Germany. Significantly, in 1902, when Lord Selborne, the First Lord of the Admiralty expressed some concern about the on-going development of the German navy, the British premier remained sceptical. (Kennedy, 1980, 255) Whilst she had become involved in a policy of fleet building, the potential naval threat posed by the German fleet was not yet a key factor in British policy making. The superiority of the Royal Navy over the Kriegsmarine, still in its infancy, was overwhelming, not only in 1902-4, but for many years after 1905. (Lambert, 1999, 8) As Mackinder noted in 1905: “the Empire possesses […] a fighting fleet equal to any two or three, other fleets.” (Mackinder, 1905, 137) Mackinder’s perception of the risks posed by a Russo-German coalition has all too easily been viewed as an anachronistic facet of his work (Parker, 1982, 159). However, this perception was a recurrent theme in British foreign policy debates before 1904, and especially so in the early months of the Boer war, when it became a major cause for concern for Britain (Corp, 1979; Diplomaticus, 1899). When it came to actual strategic planning, Germany was only perceived by the Admiralty as realistically posing a threat as part of an anti-British coalition. As a counter to this, in 1902 the Admiralty had pressed for the two- power standard, plus six battleships over and above the straight parity with France and Russia. (Bartlett, 1993, 99) The direct relevance of Mackinder’s analysis about the risk of a Russo-German coalition, usually treated dismissively, is demonstrated by the fact that twice during the Russo- Japanese war Kaiser Wilhelm II did propose an alliance with Russia. (Sontag, 1928) A first attempt in October 1904 was unsuccessful. (Steinberg, 1970, 1977-81) but in July 1905, the Russian Tsar signed the Bjorkö Treaty, a defensive alliance, though the Russians denounced it just a few months later. (McLean, 50-51) The possibility of such a continental alliance had been the cause of considerable concern in Britain, as it would have had very serious implications in the context of the ongoing Russo-Japanese war. Under the terms of the Agreements between Great Britain and Japan of 30 January 1902, Britain would have been bound to belligerence in a war between her ally and any two other powers. (Nish, 1966) The Times even got somewhat carried away in September 1904 by wrongly announcing that a Russo-German understanding had been reached. (Steinberg, 1970, 1977)

II.

It is not uncommon for scholars to read The Geographical Pivot of History as directly recommending a precise policy of alliance. For instance, Robert Strauz-Hupé felt that Mackinder « advocated an Anglo-Russian understanding which, after nearly a century of estrangement, was concluded in 1907. » (Strauz-Hupé, 1942, 43) However, it can be argued that the actual prescriptive dimension of the article was perhaps more limited, and primarily amounted to three key points. Firstly, Mackinder stressed the absolute necessity for Britain to contain Russia and stop the “pivot state” from gaining access to the coast of Persia. He did not give any specific indication of how Britain might go about this, but maintaining the status quo in the Gulf was already a key priority for British foreign policymakers. This had been made clear by Lord Landsdowne in his « Persian Gulf Declaration » of 5 May 1903, in which he forcefully stated that: “We should regard the establishment of a naval base, or of a fortified port, in the Persian Gulf by any other Power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal. » (Monger, 1963, 123) This view was further reinforced by the official tour of the Gulf undertaken by the Vice-Roy of India, Lord Curzon at the end of 1903.

Secondly, the article suggested the necessity for Britain to prevent the two main continental powers, Germany and Russia, from coming together. This can be understood as suggesting that it was crucial for Britain not to encourage Germany to follow a “pivot policy” by displaying an unnecessarily hostility. Finally, Mackinder considered how Britain could deal with what was clearly a worst-case scenario, a possible Russo-German alliance: “if Germany were to ally herself with Russia. The threat of such an event should, therefore, throw France into alliance with the over-sea powers, and France, Italy, Egypt, India, and Korea would become so many bridge heads where the outside navies would support armies to compel the pivot allies to deploy land forces and prevent them from concentrating their whole strength on fleets.” (Mackinder, 1904, 436) The author’s prospective thinking on this scenario is very interesting and deserves comment. Such an alliance would have revolutionized strategic affairs at the beginning of the twentieth century. It would have been most likely that in such circumstances France would have denounced her alliance with Russia, as the outstanding question of the annexation of the French provinces by Germany in 1871 remained an insurmountable obstacle to a Franco-German alliance (Keiger, 2001). Incidentally, Franco-British relations had recently improved spectacularly, thanks to the rapprochement of 1903, which was to lead to the Entente cordiale of 8 April 1904, a settlement of imperial disputes between the two powers and the starting point of active diplomatic collaboration. (Andrew, 1968, 201-215) The expression of the “overseas powers”, used by Mackinder seems to be understood as the powers of the outer crescent: Britain and her empire, her ally, Japan, but also the United States. Such a de facto solidarity between Britain and the USA, as assumed by Mackinder, is interesting in it-self and appears consistent with ideas of a common Anglo-Saxon world so influential at the turn of the Twentieth Century. According to Mackinder, the maritime power’s response to a continental coalition involved a form of containment policy. The suggested strategy of bridgeheads implied the need for Britain and her allies to develop a capacity for projecting power in the regions of the coastlands that she clearly did not have in 1904. At that time the British Army seemed ill prepared for a possible war with Russia, and the defence needs of India needed to be addressed. This obviously implied the necessary manpower resources, but there Mackinder placed his hopes on the potential represented by the empire. (Mackinder, 1905) Besides, an alliance between the maritime powers would have provided a sizeable number of men. A fascinating dimension of the last scenario is undoubtedly that an alliance of the two main continental powers would have posed the question of the very survival of Britain. This seems to be extremely representative of the ideological climate of Social Darwinism.

Mackinder’s article is generally interpreted as a pessimistic reading of the position of Britain in the world. Mark Polelle, for instance, thinks that, “Mackinder should be recognized as a pessimistic prophet for recognizing and lamenting the overshadowing of the European nation-state by continental power centre.”(Polelle, 1999, 58) An alternative interpretation could stress that The Geographical Pivot of History was primarily an “exercise in ‘shock’ tactics” (Heffernan, 1998, 66), but also that beyond the prognosis, it was pointing towards changes needed for Britain to be able to meet the challenge of the new century. Mackinder and fellow social imperialists were actively promoting a solution based on the idea of constructive imperialism and imperial unity. Some lateral thinking may provide some useful reflections on whether formulas such as the fin de siècle spirit or the crisis of conservatism help us to grasp the mood of this group of Edwardians. For there seems to be something of an extraordinary voluntarism in the frame of mind of Mackinder and of his fellow social imperialists, together with a feeling of quiet superiority, racial or otherwise, of the Edwardian British elites. If not offering a panacea, they felt that the empire gave Britain a major card to play, providing it was possible to bring about imperial unity. Mackinder further advocated tariff reform, which would allow for the economic integration of Greater Britain and the promotion of national efficiency through a programme of social and educational reform.

Geroid Ó’Tuathail has very aptly noted that, « the pivot is the new myth around which the British Empire must reconsolidate itself ». (Ó’Tuathail, 1996, 235) Such a constructive dimension is indeed central to the famous map of the “seats of powers”, which accompanied the article, and which was not simply illustrative but central to the argument itself. (Mackinder, 1904, 435) “Man-power as a measure of national and imperial strength”, an article Mackinder published in January 1905 in the National and English Review, offers some valuable insight into this positive vision. (Mackinder, 1905, 140) Mackinder makes a case for regarding “Canada, Australasia, and South Africa as set like crescent on the Turkish flag, with India in the place of the star.” This way of symbolically visualising the imagined imperial community of the British White colonies, forming a crescent centred on India, is indeed noteworthy. It is symptomatic of the way in which racialist views were central to imperial thinking in the age of Social Darwinism and Anglo-Saxonism. It is interesting to resituate the use of such a visual metaphor, undoubtedly part of an effort to foster a process of nation identity building, that of Greater Britain, with Mackinder’s organicism, which is already very well documented. (Ó’Tuathail, 1992; Deudney, 2001) An organic concept of history can be found in the meta-narrative developed by Mackinder in The Geographical Pivot of History. As he put it, “ideas which go to form a nation … have usually been accepted under the pressure of a common tribulation, and under a common necessity of resistance to external force”; elsewhere he refers to the way in which external pressures had had a “stimulative” effect on the people of Europe (Mackinder, 1904, 422-3 and 428). In 1904, the task at hand was, in Mackinder’s view, for the British Empire to move towards imperial unity, stressing the potential threat posed by the “pivot state” of direct relevance. Linda Colley has addressed the powerful role that French enmity played in the development of Britishness in the Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries. Colley, 1992) Seemingly, Mackinder sought to identify Russia as a suitable enemy who, in turn, would stimulate identification with a Greater British nation. After all, had not the South African war of 1899-1902 offered an interesting insight into how the Empire could react positively to a common foe?

III.

Much of the thinking of scholars who have argued that Mackinder’s ideas were largely irrelevant has been informed by the interpretations of international relations. This stresses the shift in focus in British foreign policy from imperial issues to European ones in the period between 1904 and 1914, while emphasizing the importance of Anglo-German relations and the way in which British policy makers almost exclusively focused on the German threat (Steiner, 1969, 1977; Williamson, 1969). However, an important historiographical trend has emerged which has challenged this interpretation. International historians such as Keith Wilson and Keith Neilson have convincingly argued that imperial issues, and especially the defence of India, remained central to British foreign policy- making during the period leading up to 1914. (Wilson, 1985, 2003; Neilson, 1995) They have stressed the limits of Euro-centricity, and the fact that Russia had a much greater impact on the formulation of British foreign policy than Germany. This suggests the pertinence of a reassessment of the relevance of Mackinder’s thinking.

The relevance of Mackinder’s thinking is perhaps best illustrated during the period 1906-1914 by the Anglo-Russian convention on Persia, signed in 1907. It is essential to stress the centrality of strategic issues in the thinking behind the negotiations on the question of Persia. As Sir Edward Grey declared in a speech to the Commons on the Anglo-Russian convention on 17 February 1908: « In making the Agreement in respect of these regions in Asia strategical considerations with us were paramount”. He also explained that: “Anyone who has studied the question of the Agreement between Great Britain and Russia would see that the first point all through in the minds of those who considered it has not been the commercial but the strategical importance of it. It is the strategical position which makes the Agreement desirable and essential. » (Grey, 1931, 60) A comparison of the map of the Anglo-Russian convention with that of the pivot area gives a striking revelation of the similitude, as Persia was divided into three zones of influence. In addition to a Russian northern zone, the creation in the East of a British zone of influence and to the South of a neutral zone, kept the Russians, confined to the northern zone, away from the coast of the Gulf.

A number of historians maintain that this focus on Imperial policy did continue after the agreements of 1907. (Wilson, 2003; Neilson, 1995; Siegel, 2002) Keith Wilson has shown how as late as 21 July 1914, in a key memorandum on Anglo-Russian relations in Persia, it was stressed that “after seven years HM Government are faced with the urgent necessity of taking stock of their position in Persia, for the incapacity of the Persians and the steady advance of Russia have together created a situation which cannot be allowed to drift any longer without the most serious danger to those British interests whose maintenance constitutes one of the most cardinal principles of Imperial policy” and that “the first principle of our foreign policy must be genuinely good relations with Russia, and founded on the belief that if we do not make relatively small sacrifices, and alter our policy, in Russia now, we shall both endanger our friendship with Russia and find in a comparatively near future that we have sacrificed our whole position in the Persian Gulf, and are face in consequence with a situation where our very existence as an Empire will be at stake”. (K. Wilson, 1995, 185-6) It should however be noted that Mackinder’s strategic thinking was itself evolving during this period. As early as January 1905, he was already involved in revising and slightly expanding his conception of the potential threat posed by the continental powers to include the Ottoman Empire: “Egypt may rank in this view as essentially a part of the Indies, for Turkey, like Russia and Germany, is Continental, and by no means wanting in crude, fanatical man-power, which railways are in process of mobilising. You cannot send ironclads into Syria, but a Continental Power or Allied Powers in possession of the Suez canal would hold the most central naval base in the world.” (Mackinder, 1905, 140)

Conclusion

Examination of the international context in 1904 reveals how Mackinder’s analysis of potential threats was both remarkably in tune with British geopolitical codes – and geopolitical culture – around 1904, and with the ideas of the British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour. The prospective effort of Mackinder does not appear as merely speculative, but as both extremely well grounded in the fundamentals of British foreign policy, and extremely relevant. A number of issues seem to deserve further attention, in particular that of the influence exerted by Mackinder before 1914, and that of the genesis of Mackinder’s conception of the “pivot zone” or “heart-land”.
An evaluation of the existing academic literature on Mackinder reveals a broad consensus on the extremely limited influence of The Geographical Pivot of History on the actual elaboration of British foreign policy prior to the First World War. (Parker, 1985, 28; Ó’Tuathail, 1998, 18) Whilst it is well established that Mackinder did have a degree of political access to a number of leading politicians such as Richard Haldane and Sir Edward Grey, and that he was involved in a number of political groups such as the Co-efficients or the Compatriots’ Club, it is extremely difficult to identify the influence of his work. In the absence of clear evidence, Brian Blouet simply notes the possibility of such influence, and he writes that « Sir Edward Grey, and particularly Haldane found Mackinder’s views interesting, and both became members of the Liberal government that signed the Anglo- Russian agreement of 1907.” (Blouet, 1987, 117) The present article has shown a number of ways in which The Geographical Pivot of History appeared relevant to British foreign policy between 1904 and 1914. If this suggests the pertinence of further archive-based research into the possible influence of Mackinder’s thinking on British foreign policy making, it is necessary to remain cautious, as direct relevance does not necessarily imply direct influence. This is all the more so in the light of Patrick O’Sullivan’s remark that “It is difficult to ascertain the extent to which geopolitical ideas have directly influenced policy and action or whether they merely reflected the zeitgeist, with both theories or actions manifesting ambient attitudes”. (O’Sullivan, 1982, 57)

Whilst the present re-examination of The Geographical Pivot of History shows that much of Mackinder’s strategic thinking was well grounded in the realities of the international relations of the early twentieth century, the heart-land itself remains problematic. The heart-land “working hypothesis”, unproven yet un-refuted, was soon to become a thesis in Mackinder’s Democratic Ideals and Reality (Mackinder, 1919), losing a hyphen in the process, and later assumed the condition of a theory. As such, it really took on a life of its own, becoming, and to this day remaining, one of the most influential theories in Western strategic thought. (Gray, 1988, Dodds, 2000) As such, it perhaps deserves further research in order to be carefully debunked. This could involve exploring the genealogy of the idea of the “pivot zone”/“heartland”: notably how Mackinder came to conceive the geographical pivot of the historical hypothesis and what was the influence of other contemporary studies on Central Asia? How did Mackinder, in an attempt to engage in prospective thinking, set about using past trends – the American model? – to reflect upon the possible development of the pivot area? What were the methodological issues that arose from its very definition? And in what ways and to what extent was he consciously involved in bringing geographical truth to established policy principles?

Blouet, B., 1987. Halford Mackinder: a Biography, Texas A & M Press, College Station, Texas.

Bond B., 1972, The Victorian Army and the Staff College,1854-1914, Eyre Methuen, London.

Colley, L. Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Corp, E.T. “Sir Charles Hardinge and the Question of Intervention in the Boer War: An Episode in the Rise of Anti-German Feeling in the British Foreign Office”, Journal of Modern History, 51 (2) (June 1979), On-Demand Supplement, D1071-84.

Deudney, D., “Greater Britain or greater synthesis? Seeley, Mackinder, and Wells on Britain in the global industrial era”, Review of international studies, Apr 2001, Vol.27, No.2, pp.187- 208.

Diplomaticus [Lucien Wolf], “Bergen and the Coalition Nightmare”, Fortnightly Review, 1 September 1899, pp. 536-546.

Dodds, K., 2000. Geopolitics in A Changing World, Prentice Hall, London.

Dunlop, J., 1938. The Development of the British Army, 1899-1914. From the eve of the South African War to
the eve of the Great War, Methuen: London.

Gaddis, J. L. 1982. Strategies of containment. New York: Oxford University Press. Gray, C., 1988. The Geopolitics of Superpower, UP Kentucky, Lexington.

Grey, E., 1931. Speeches on Foreign Affairs, 1904-1914, G. Allen and Unwin, London. Heffernan, M., 1998. The Meaning of Europe: Geography and Geopolitics, Arnold, London.

Herwig, H., 1976. Politics of Frustration: The United States in German Strategic Planning, 1888-1941. Little, Brown, Boston, Mass.

Hutcheson, J.A., 1989. Leopold Maxse and the National Review, 1893-1914: Right-Wing Politics and Journalism in the Edwardian Era. Garland, London, 1989.

Judd, D., 1968. Balfour and the British Empire: A Study in Imperial Evolution, 1874-1932, Macmillan, London.

Kearns, G., 1985. “Halford John Mackinder, 1861–1947”. Geographers: Biobibliographical Studies 9, pp. 71–86.

Keiger, J., 2001. France and the World Since 1870, OUP, New York.

Kennedy, P., 1980. The rise of the Anglo-German antagonism 1860-1914, Allen and Unwin, London.

Kennedy, P., 1981. The Realities Behind Diplomacy: Background Influences on British External Policy, 1865- 1980, Fontana, London.

Kennedy, P., 1983. « Mahan versus Mackinder: Two Interpretations of British Sea Power », in Stategy and Diplomacy 1870-1945, Eight Studies, Allen and Unwin, London, pp. 41-85.

Lambert, N., 1999. Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.

Livingstone, D., 1992. The Geographical Tradition. Episodes in the History of a Contested Enterprise. Oxford, Blackwell.

Mackay, R., 1985. Balfour: Intellectual Statesman, OUP, Oxford.

Mackinder, H.J., 1904. “The Geographical Pivot of History”, Geographical Journal, Vol. XXIII, No 4 (April), 421-437.

Mackinder, H.J. (1905). Man-Power as a Measure of National and Imperial Strength”, National and English Review, 45, 136-143.

McLean, R., 2001. Royalty and Diplomacy in Europe, 1890-1914, Cambrige: CUP.

Monger, G., 1963. The End of Isolation: British Foreign Policy, 1900-1907, Nelson, London.

Morris, A., 1984, The scaremongers. the advocacy of war and rearmament 1896-1914, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Neilson, K, 1995, Britain and the Last Tsar, British Policy and Russia, 1894-1917, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Nish, I., 1966. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance: the Diplomacy of Two Island Empires, 1894-1907, Athlone Press, London.

Ó’Tuathail, G. 1992, « Putting Mackinder in his Place: Material Transformations and Myth », Political Geography, 1992, 11, pp.100-118.

Ó’Tuathail, G., 1996. Critical geopolitics: the politics of writing global space, Routledge, London. Ó’Tuathail, G., 1998. The Geopolitics Reader, Routledge, London.

Ó’Tuathail, G., 2003. « Structures and Geopolitical Cultures: Towards Conceptual Clarity in the Critical Study of Geopolitics, in Tchantouridze L. (ed.), Bison Paper 4, Winnipeg: Centre for Defence and Security Studies.

Polelle, M. 1999, Raising Cartographic Consciousness, The Social and Foreign Policy Vision of Geopolitics in the Twentieth Century, Lexington Books, Oxford.

Siegel, J., 2002. Endgame: Britain, Russia and the Final Struggle for Central Asia, IB Tauris, London.

Sloan, G., « Sir Halford Mackinder: The Heartland Theory Then and Now », in Gray, C.S. and Sloan, G.R., Geopolitics, Geography and Strategy (London: Frank Cass, 1999).

Sontag, R.J., 1928. “German Foreign Policy, 1904-1906”, The American Historical Review, vol. 33, no. 2, 278-301.

Steinberg, J., 1970. “Germany and the Russo-Japanese War”, The American Historical Review, Vol. 75, No. 7, 1965-1986.

Strauz-Hupé, R., 1942.Geopolitics: The Struggle for Space and Power, Putman, New York.

Taylor, P.J., 1993. Political Geography, World Economy, Nation-State and Locality, Harlow,Longman.

Towle, P., 1980. “The Russo-Japanese War and the Defence of India”, Military Affairs, vol. 44, No 3, 111-117.

Williams, R., 1991. Defending the Empire, The Conservative Party and British Defence Policy, 1899-1915, Yale University Press, London.

Wilson, K., Decisions for War, 1914, Londres, UCL Press, 1995.

Wilson, K., [c. 1988]. “The Struggle for Persia: Sir G. Clerk’s memorandum of 21 juillet 1914 on Anglo-Russian relations in Persia”, in Proceedings of the 1988 B.R.I.S.M.E.S International Conference on Middle Eastern Studies, Oxford : British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, pp. 290-334.

Wilson, K., 2003, Problems and Possibilities, Exercises in Statesmanship 1814-1918, Tempus, Stroud.

Propulsé par WordPress.com.

Retour en haut ↑