Editing Geopolitics (section)

==Germany==

=== Friedrich Ratzel ===
[[Friedrich Ratzel]] (1844–1904), influenced by thinkers such as [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] and [[zoology|zoologist]] [[Ernst Heinrich Haeckel]], contributed to 'Geopolitik' by the expansion on the biological conception of geography, without a static conception of borders. Positing that states are organic and growing, with borders representing only a temporary stop in their movement, he held that the expanse of a state's borders is a reflection of the health of the nation—meaning that static countries are in decline. Ratzel published several papers, among which was the essay "Lebensraum" (1901) concerning [[biogeography]]. Ratzel created a foundation for the German variant of geopolitics, ''geopolitik''. Influenced by the American [[geostrategy|geostrategist]] Alfred Thayer Mahan, Ratzel wrote of aspirations for German naval reach, agreeing that sea power was self-sustaining, as the profit from trade would pay for the merchant marine, unlike land power.{{Citation needed|date=September 2023}}

The geopolitical theory of Ratzel has been criticized as being too sweeping, and his interpretation of human history and geography being too simple and mechanistic. Critically, he also underestimated the importance of social organization in the development of power.<ref name=":6">{{Cite book|last1=Ó Tuathail|first1=Gearóid|title=The geopolitics reader|last2=Dalby|first2=Simon|last3=Routledge|first3=Paul|date=2011|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-415-34148-6|location=London; New York|language=en|oclc=750496870}}</ref>

=== The association of German Geopolitik with Nazism ===

After [[World War I]], the thoughts of [[Rudolf Kjellén]] and Ratzel were picked up and extended by a number of German authors such as [[Karl Haushofer]] (1869–1946), [[Erich Obst]], Hermann Lautensach, and [[Otto Maull]]. In 1923, [[Karl Haushofer]] founded the ''Zeitschrift für Geopolitik'' (Journal for Geopolitics), which was later used in the [[propaganda]] of [[Nazi Germany]]. The key concepts of Haushofer's Geopolitik were Lebensraum, [[autarky]], [[pan-region]]s, and organic borders. States have, Haushofer argued, an undeniable right to seek [[natural border]]s which would guarantee [[wikt:autarky|autarky]].

Haushofer's influence within the [[Nazi Party]] has been challenged, given that Haushofer failed to incorporate the Nazis' racial ideology into his work.<ref name=":6" /> Popular views of the role of geopolitics in the Nazi Third Reich suggest a fundamental significance on the part of the geo-politicians in the ideological orientation of the Nazi state. Bassin (1987) reveals that these popular views are in important ways misleading and incorrect.

Despite the numerous similarities and affinities between the two doctrines, geopolitics was always held suspect by the National Socialist ideologists. This was understandable, for the underlying philosophical orientation of geopolitics did not comply with that of National Socialism. Geopolitics shared Ratzel's [[scientific materialism]] and geographic determinism, and held that human society was determined by external influences—in the face of which qualities held innately by individuals or groups were of reduced or no significance. National Socialism rejected in principle both materialism and determinism and also elevated innate human qualities, in the form of a hypothesized 'racial character,' to the factor of greatest significance in the constitution of human society. These differences led after 1933 to friction and ultimately to open denunciation of geopolitics by Nazi ideologues.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bassin|first=Mark|date=April 1987|title=Race contra space: the conflict between German geopolitik and national socialism|journal=Political Geography Quarterly|language=en|volume=6|issue=2|pages=115–134|doi=10.1016/0260-9827(87)90002-4}}</ref> Nevertheless, German Geopolitik was discredited by its (mis)use in Nazi expansionist policy of [[World War II]] and has never achieved standing comparable to the pre-war period.{{Citation needed|date=September 2023}}

The resultant negative association, particularly in U.S. academic circles, between classical geopolitics and Nazi or [[imperialist]] ideology, is based on loose justifications. This has been observed in particular by critics of contemporary academic geography, and proponents of a "neo"-classical geopolitics in particular. These include Haverluk et al., who argue that the stigmatization of geopolitics in academia is unhelpful as geopolitics as a field of positivist inquiry maintains potential in researching and resolving topical, often politicized issues such as [[conflict resolution]] and prevention, and mitigating [[climate change]].<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1080/14650045.2013.803192 | volume=19 | title=The Three Critical Flaws of Critical Geopolitics: Towards a Neo-Classical Geopolitics | journal=Geopolitics | pages=19–39| year=2014 | last1=Haverluk | first1=Terrence W. | last2=Beauchemin | first2=Kevin M. | last3=Mueller | first3=Brandon A. | s2cid=144597416 | url=https://zenodo.org/record/1234503 }}</ref>

===Disciplinary differences in perspectives===
Negative associations with the term "geopolitics" and its practical application stemming from its association with World War II and pre-World War II German scholars and students of geopolitics are largely specific to the field of academic geography, and especially sub-disciplines of [[human geography]] such as political geography. However, this negative association is not as strong in disciplines such as history or political science, which make use of geopolitical concepts. Classical geopolitics forms an important element of analysis for military history as well as for sub-disciplines of political science such as international relations and [[security studies]]. This difference in disciplinary perspectives is addressed by Bert Chapman in ''Geopolitics: A Guide To the Issues'', in which Chapman makes note that academic and professional International Relations journals are more amenable to the study and analysis of Geopolitics, and in particular Classical geopolitics, than contemporary academic journals in the field of political geography.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Chapman|first=Bert|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=swINFRDahjYC|title=Geopolitics: A Guide to the Issues|date=2011|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-0-313-38579-7|language=en|oclc=913615116}}</ref>

In disciplines outside geography, geopolitics is not negatively viewed (as it often is among academic geographers such as [[Carolyn Gallaher]] or [[Klaus Dodds]]) as a tool of imperialism or associated with Nazism, but rather viewed as a valid and consistent manner of assessing major international geopolitical circumstances and events, not necessarily related to armed conflict or military operations.