Nazemroaya: Eurasia and the History of War


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

The "Great Game": Eurasia and the History of War

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, December 3, 2007

The History of War

History is often self-repeating. Those who are oblivious to the lessons of 
history are, by virtue of ignorance, doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Samuel P. Huntington¹s ³Clash of Civilizations,² is an outright camouflage, an 
ideological instrument used to reach geo-political objectives.  This "conflict 
notion" is part of a broad strategy which has been used throughout history to 
divide, conquer, and rule.

By Huntington¹s definitions, nine diverse civilizations co-inhabit Eurasia; 
establishing conflict between them is a means towards controlling them and 
eventually absorbing them in the Spencerian sense of war and the social 
evolution of nation-states and societies, as defined by British sociologist 
Herbert Spencer.

Is humanity witness once again to a gradual march towards a large-scale 
international war like the Second World War, as Vladimir Putin has warned the 
Russian people? Or is fear being used to push forward otherwise unacceptable 
global economic policies?

If the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the dual-thrones 
of Austria and Hungary (the Austro-Hungarian Empire), on June 28, 1914 was the 
cause of the First World War why then was there talk of a major war throughout 
Europe in 1905?

It was on the eve of the First World War that radical changes were made to the 
banking system in the U.S. and on the eve of the Second World War that otherwise
unpopular economic reforms were implemented in Britain. War allows otherwise 
unpopular measures to be accepted by domestic populations or gives them stealthy
means for execution.

Mackinder¹s Warnings: Divide the Continentals (Eurasians)

Mackinder warned British strategists about preventing Eurasian unification:

³What if the Great Continent, the whole World-Island [Africa and Eurasia] or a 
large part of it [e.g., Russia, China, Iran, and India] were at some future time
to become a single and united base of sea-power? Would not the other insular 
bases [e.g., Britain, the U.S., and Japan] be outbuilt [sic] as regards [to] 
ships and outmanned as regards [to] seamen?² [1]

Mackinder also went on to instruct Britain to prevent this unification from ever
happening: a policy of balkanization was adopted by London, with a strategic aim
of preventing Eurasian unification.

In addition, Mackinder also warned about the large populations of Eurasia. 
Mackinder argued that lasting empires were based on manpower:

³[The] vast Saracen [Arab] design of a northward and southward Dominion of 
Camel-men crossed by a westward and eastward Dominion of Shipmen was vitiated by
one fatal defect; it lacked in its Arabian base the necessary man-power to make 
it good. But no student of the realities about which must turn the strategical 
thought of any government aspiring to world-power can afford to lose sight of 
the warning thus given by History.² [2]

Mackinder also makes the same observation about the short-lived empires of the 
peoples¹ of the Eurasian steppes, such as the Mongols:

³When the Russian Cossacks first policed the steppes at the close of the Middle 
Ages, a great revolution was effected, for the Tartars, like the Arabs, had 
lacked the necessary man-power upon which to found a lasting Empire, but behind 
the Cossacks were the Russian ploughman, who have to-day [1905] grown to be a 
people of a hundred millions on the fertile plains of the Black and Baltic 
Seas.² [3]

Population is clearly an important geo-strategic issue. Under this scheme 
Russia, China, and India are viewed as threats. This is also why the U.S. will 
never give up its nuclear weapons. Aside from military superiority and nuclear 
weapons, how can the generally less populated NATO states keep a balance of 
power with such heavily populated states? It should also be noted that one of 
the reasons for European conquests and colonial expansion was also the fact 
that, at the time, European countries had (in relative terms) large populations.

Dividing, balkanizing, and finlandizing Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and the 
former U.S.S.R. to the Middle East and India, is consistent with these 
historical objectives outlined by Britain prior to the First World War. This is 
one of the reasons why Britain, France, and America gave refuge prior to World 
War I to various separatist movements from within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 
the Ottoman Empire, and Czarist Russia. Today, the U.S. and Britain are 
harbouring similar political groups against Iran, Sudan, Turkey, Russia, Serbia,
China, and India. Nothing has changed. Only today Zbigniew Brzezinski makes 
these warnings and not Halford Mackinder.

Learning from History: The Prevention of the German Ostbewegung

In 1848, at St. Paul¹s Church in Frankfurt there was an attempt to create a 
single and large Central-Eastern European, German-dominated nation. This project
did not move forward until half a century later, because of the opposition of 
the Habsburg Dynasty and the rivalry between Prussia and Austria.

Britain feared the German Drang nach Osten, the ³drive to the East,² or the 
Ostbewegung or ³eastward movement.²

For the most part this eastward movement, which started in 1200 with the 
extension of long distance trade, was not part of any German imperial ambitions.
[4] The fear in British circles was that some form of unification between the 
two dominant powers in the Eurasian Heartland, namely Germany and Russia would 
occur. The fear in the Twenty-First Century is the unification of Russia, China,
India, and Iran.

Before the First World War, British strategists believed that Germany was making
important inroads towards becoming a global superpower. All that was required to
elevate Germany was industrial control over Russia and the Ottoman Empire, which
was well underway. Germany was already taking over British markets and 
threatening the U.S. and Britain economically.

Historically, Eastern Europe has been sandwiched between two great nations, 
Germany and Russia. After the Napoleonic era and up until the First World War, 
Eastern Europe was dominated by the Russians and then the Germans. Historically,
British strategy was aimed at weakening Czarist Russia until Germany replaced 
Russia as the dominant power in Eastern Europe. This is one of the reasons why 
Britain and France supported the Ottoman Turks in their wars against the 

German influence in Eastern Europe was secured under a partnership between the 
Hungarians (Magyars) and Austrians. German influence had also been growing 
economically, politically, and industrially under the Ottoman Turks in the 
Middle East. In Czarist Russia, before the First World War, German influence was
politically and economically significant. The Russian capital, St. Petersburg, 
was in a Germanized area of the Russian Czardom and many Russian aristocrats and
nobles were Germanized and German speaking.

German industrial colonies or settlements were also established in the Ukraine 
and the Caucasus within the territory of Czarist Russia. Similarly German 
settlements were established in the Levant, within the territory of the Ottoman 
Turks. The Ostbewegung was more about economics and a united and strong Eurasian
industrial base under the control of Germany than it was about the myth of 
German colonization of all Eurasia.

However, Germany¹s means of economic expansion did change about half a century 
later with the rise of Adolph Hitler in Berlin, who tried to force a 
German-driven form of globalization in Eurasia by military means. Is this being 
repeated by those who hold power in Washington, D.C. and London?

A Lesson from History: Playing the Russians and the Germans in War

Economics and industrial competition was the real key behind the tensions that 
resulted in the First World War. Mackinder also states this. In reality the 
truth of the matter was that the Germans were from an economic standpoint 
expanding eastwards. The German demographic push to the East was also over 
exaggerated. Historically, in many cases Germans were invited as merchants and 
craftsmen by Eastern European states, such as Bohemia and Hungary, before the 
unification of Germany under Prince Otto von Bismarck the Prime Minister of 

Mackinder and others in Britain saw this all as part of a gradual trend that 
would unify the Eurasian Heartland under a single and powerful player.

The key to stopping the emergence of a single powerful player in the Heartland 
was to play the Germans against the Russians:

³In East Europe there are also two principle elements, the Teutonic [German] and
the Slavonic, but no equilibrium has been established between them as between 
the Romance [Latin-based speaking] and Teutonic elements of West Europe. The key
to the whole situation in East Europe ‹ and it is a fact which cannot be laid to
heart at the present moment ‹ is the German claim to dominance over the Slavs. 
Vienna and Berlin, just beyond the boundary of West Europe, stand already within
territory that was Slav in the earlier Middle Ages; they represent the first 
step of the German out of his native country as a conqueror eastward.² [5]

In the eyes of Britain, playing the Russians and the Germans against one another
was vital to keeping the Continentals from uniting.

The Roots of an Anglo-American Compact

The British and the U.S. were clearly trying to weaken both Germany and Czarist 
Russia. This is evident from British and American support for the Japanese ³when
it [meaning Britain] kept the [naval] ring round the Russo-Japanese War,² in 
1904 to 1905. [6]

By the time  of the Russo-Japanese War the Anglo-American alliance had already 
formed between the U.S. and Britain as Mackinder notes:

³Those events began some twenty years ago [in 1898] with three great victories 
won by the British fleet without the firing of a gun. The first was at Manila 
[in the Philippines], in the Pacific Ocean, when a German squadron threatened to
intervene to protect a Spanish squadron [in the Spanish-American War], which was
defeated by an American squadron, and a British squadron stood by the 

In Mackinder¹s words ³So was the first step taken towards the reconciliation of 
British and American hearts.² [8] This was also the point in history where the 
U.S. became a major imperialist power.

It should also be noted that the Spanish-American War is believed by some 
historians to have been started under a false pretext. The U.S. government 
started the war, blaming the Spanish for the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in 
Cuba, from whence comes the quote that was used to build American public support
against the Spanish: ³Remember the Maine!²

The Second World War: Playing the Soviets against the Germans

The strategy of playing the main players in Eurasia against one another 
continued into the Second World War. Germany, France, and the Soviet Union were 
played against one another just as Germany, Czarist Russia, and the Ottoman 
Empire were before the First World War.

This is evident from the fact that Britain and France only declared war on 
Germany when both Germany and the U.S.S.R. invaded Poland in 1939. The Locarno 
Pacts and Hoare-Laval Plan were used by the British government to push the 
Germans eastward to confront the Soviets by neutralizing France and allowing 
Germany to militarize, while appeasement under Neville Chamberlain was a 
calculated move aimed at liquidating any states between Germany and the Soviet 
Union and establishing a common German-Soviet border. [9]

Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were aware of Anglo-American policy. Both
countries signed a non-aggression pact prior to the Second World War, largely in
response to the Anglo-American stance. In the end it was because of Soviet and 
German distrust for one another that the Soviet-German alliance collapsed. 
Presently, the U.S. government is using the same strategies in regards to 
Russia, China, Iran, India, and other Eurasian players.

The Roots of Strategic Balkanization: Preventing the Unification of Eurasia

Mackinder stipulated that the Eurasian Heartland started in Eastern Europe and 
on the frontiers of Germany. It was from Eastern Europe that a foothold could be
established for entrance into the Eurasian interior.

London¹s greatest fear, until the division of Austria-Hungary and a creation of 
a buffer zone between the Germans and the Russians with the emergence of several
new states after 1918, was the unification of the Germans and the Slavs as a 
single Eurasian entity.

British balkanization policy was a synergy of colonial policy, power politics, 
economics, and historical observation.

Strategic balkanization probably came to maturity when Italy and Germany became 
unified nation-states and the British realized the dangers that centralized and 
strong states in Europe could pose. Once again, economics was a driving force. 
Before this period balkanization was used for colonial means. After the 
formation, or rather unification, of Germany and Italy balkanization also became
a means to neutralize potential British rivals.

Franti‹ek Palack‹, the famous Czech historian, is quoted as stating: ³If Austria
[meaning the Habsburg or Austro-Hungarian Empire] did not exist, it would be 
necessary to create her, in the interests of humanity itself.²

This is a noteworthy statement because Palack‹ was a Slav, who defended the 
Austro-Hungarian Empire due to its multi-ethnic characteristics.

The Habsburg Empire was a regional synthesis between the Germans, the Hungarians
(Magyar), and the Slavs. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, like the former Yugoslavia
that would spring from its ashes, was also religiously diverse. Christians, 
Jews, and Muslims lived within its borders and in 1912 Islam became a state 
religion, alongside the Roman Catholic denomination of Christianity. The British
feared that this model under the leadership of German industrial might could be 
extended to Germany, Austria-Hungary and Czarist Russia, thereby creating a 
powerful German-Slavic political entity in the Eurasian Heartland. [10] The 
synthesis was already underway, with the inclusion of the Ottoman Empire, until 
the First World War stopped it. As already stated this process was part of a 
historical fusion. Austria-Hungary had to be dismantled in the eyes of London, 
with a view to obstructing any unification process between the Continentals.

For these reasons separatist nationalist movements were utilized and 
manipulated. Czechoslovak leaders, such as Milan Rastislav ‹tefánik, fought for 
the French and British during the First World War. It should also be noted that 
in September 1918, the U.S. government recognized Czechoslovakia before it was 
even created and that the Pittsburgh Agreement, which paved the way for breaking
up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and creating Czechoslovakia, was signed in 
Pennsylvania with the support of the British and U.S. governments. Three 
³Czecho-Slovak² legions were also formed to fight Germany and the 
Austro-Hungarians by Britain and France in the First World War.

Redrawing Eastern Europe and the Middle East: The Template for Iraq

Since the First World War instability has been continuously fueled from Kosovo 
in the Balkans to the province of Xinjiang, which constitutes China's Western 
frontier. This is an important fact that manifests itself from events such as 
the division of India to the division of Yugoslavia.

The rationale for establishing new states in Eastern Europe is also explained by

³Securely independent the Polish and Bohemian [the Czech and Slovak] nations 
cannot be unless as the apex of a broad wedge of independence, extending from 
the Adriatic and Black Seas to the Baltic; but seven independent States, with a 
total of more than sixty million people, traversed by railways linking them 
securely with one another, and having access through the Adriatic, Black, and 
Baltic Seas with the [Atlantic] Ocean, will together effectively balance the 
Germans of Prussia [meaning Germany] and Austria, and nothing less will suffice 
for that purpose.² [11]

Although Bohemia is properly a reference to the Czechs, in this case Mackinder 
is using it to mean both the Czechs and the Slovaks or Czechoslovakia.

By 1914, the Germans had already secured significant inroads into the Ottoman 
Empire. The Ottoman Empire had to be dismantled too. However, in the eyes of 
British strategists, Russia and Germany were the two main long-term opponents. 
To undermine the process of unification between the Germans and Russians, a 
shatter-belt region had to be created in Eastern Europe between Germany and 

After the First World War, Anglo-American planners projected the replacement of 
Germany by the Soviet Union, the player that emerged from the ashes of Czarist 
Russia, as the most powerful player in Eurasia. Creating a shatter-belt zone 
around the western portion of the Soviet Union from the Baltic to the Balkans 
and the Persian Gulf became a strategic objective for the British. This is one 
of the reasons why so many new nations were created in Eastern Europe and the 
Middle East after the First World War and again in Eastern Europe and Central 
Asia after the Cold War.

As Anglo-American strategists started looking at global strategy in a holistic 
view they adopted the concept of trans-continental encirclement.

The Rimland is the concept of a geographic area adjacent or circling the 
Eurasian ³Heartland.² Western Europe, Central Europe, the Middle East, the 
Indian sub-continent, Southeast Asia, and the Far East comprise this area from 
Western Eurasia to Eastern Eurasia. Nicholas Spykman¹s Rimland helps give an 
objective and historical context to the present zones of conflict encircling 
Russia, China, and Iran that start from the Balkans, the Kurdish areas of the 
Middle East, Iraq, Caucasia, and go through NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, 
Kashmir, Indo-China, and finish in the Korean Peninsula. The geographic 
locations of these areas say much as to which countries or players are 

Iraq is being redrawn in a step by step fashion, but firstly though its 
political landscape and a system of soft federalism. This holistic concept is 
also getting stronger and the existence of European and Asiatic missile shield 
projects are connected to this approach as is the brinkmanship to create an 
American-dominated global military alliance.

The Pirenne Thesis

In his book, Mohammed and Charlemagne, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne, states 
that Charlemagne and the Frankish Empire would never have existed if it were not
for the period of Arab expansion in the Mediterranean region. Henri Pirenne 
became known for his thesis that the Germanic barbarians, such as the Franks and
Goths, that were traditionally credited by historians for the fall of the 
Western Roman Empire in reality merged themselves with the Western Roman Empire 
and that the economic and institutional templates of Western Rome continued and 
stayed intact. Pirenne challenged the traditional historic narrative that the 
Germanic barbarians were the reason for the decline of Western Rome.

Pirenne seems correct in the basis of his theory. In most cases Western Roman 
ways were maintained by the Germanic kingdoms. The facts that the Franks, a 
Germanic people, adopted Latin (which eventually evolved into French over time) 
as their language or that the Roman Church stayed intact as an important 
societal institution supports his observations and thesis.

The decline of Rome is more probably based on an end to an economy based on 
imperial expansion, slavery, over-militarization, and political corruption as 
its main factors. The decline of the Western European economy was not because 
the Arabs were unwilling to continue trade with Western Europe, but because of 
militarism and the de-centralization that went with it, hand-in-hand; the end 
result being European feudalism. Is this process repeating itself today?

To Pirenne, it was clear that the economic framework of the Roman Empire, 
Western and Eastern (Byzantine), was fixed around the economy and trade of the 
Mediterranean Sea. Western Rome only transformed from a politically centralized 
entity to a network of politically separate kingdoms and states, but with the 
same economic framework, fixed on the Mediterranean, intact.

Pirenne theorized that the real decline in the Western Roman entity was brought 
about by the rapid expansion of the Arabs. The Levant, Egypt, various 
Mediterranean islands, portions of Anatolia (Asia Minor), Spain, Portugal, 
Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, which were all Mediterranean regions, were
all incorporated within the vast cosmopolitan realm of the Arabs. According to 
Pirenne, the reason that this decline was brought about was the cut in ties 
between the integrated economies of most of the Mediterranean and Western Europe
that was brought about by the Arabs. Western Europe effectively degenerated into
a marginalized economic hinterland.

Another factor that should be added to Pirenne¹s theory about the economic 
decline of Western Europe after the fall of Rome was that Eastern Rome 
(Byzantium) also diverted its trade, or reduced its level, from Western Europe 
due to economic realities brought about by the Arab expansion in the 
Mediterranean. Also in part the dissolved economic links between Western Europe 
and the Byzantines was because of the differences and rivalry between the 
Western Christian Church and the Eastern Christian Church that developed with 
time. Animosity also existed between the authorities in Constantinople and 
Western Europe and further effected economic ties. These tensions were also in 
many cases economic in origin.

The Pirenne Thesis states that Western Europe was transformed into a series of 
farm-based economies, which slowly gave rise to European feudalism, due to Arab 
expansion. Raw resources were being exported outwards with little imports to 
Western Europe, whereas before items and resources such as valuable metals and 
Egyptian papyrus would enter Western Europe. This was because the economy of 
Western Europe was cut off from the rest of the globe. The European voyages of 
discovery that occur later can also be traced to this period as a means to 
reverse this process.

The Eurasians Strike Back: The New Silk Road

Today, across Eurasia there is a renewed drive at economic and socio-political 
cooperation and integration. The Silk Road is being revived. Iran, Russia, and 
China are the most important forces in this project. Kazakhstan is also playing 
a very important role. Railway networks, transport corridors, electric grids, 
and various forms of infrastructure are being developed, linked, and built in an
effort to integrate Eurasia.

Central Asia is set to become the mid-axis and the heartland of a series of 
north-south and west-east corridors. A strategic triangle between Russia, Iran, 
and China will set the border for a Eurasian trade zone that can eventually 
bring Africa and chunks of Europe into its orbit. Latin America has already 
anticipated this shift and is preparing to redirect part of its trade from the 
U.S. and E.U. towards this area.

China is a global centre of labour while Russia, Iran, and Central Asia hold 15%
or more of global oil reserves and 50% of the world¹s reserves of natural gas. 
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) also holds half the planet¹s 
estimated population. Together these areas also have vast and important markets.

Eurasia is coming together in a wave of regional integration and cross-border 
trade. Russia and Kazakhstan have also made proposals for the eventual formation
of a Eurasian Union. The customs union established between Russia, Belarus, and 
Kazakhstan is a step towards this Eurasian Union. Iran has also made proposals 
for the formation of a so-called Islamic Union between nations with Muslim 

This is all effectively a re-introduction of the Pirenne Thesis in a modern 
context. In this second round of the Pirennian cycle it is the trade-dependent 
economies of Western Europe and the U.S., the players of the Eurasian periphery 
and the maritime realms, that are under threat of being marginalized like the 
former areas of Western Rome were during the Arab expansion in the 
Mediterranean. The Eurasians are striking back; they realize that it is not them
who needs the U.S. or E.U., but the other way around.

A Mediterranean Union and an Islamic Union: The West versus the Eurasian 

Reflecting on the Pirenne Thesis, it is also not historically ironic that the 
E.U. is pushing for the establishment of a Mediterranean Union, which would 
economically merge the nations of the Mediterranean and E.U. together with both 
Israel and Turkey playing key roles. This is a Western answer to the growing 
strength and cohesion in the Eurasian Heartland between Russia, Iran, and China.

To counter this drive Russia, China, and Iran have been courting the nations of 
the Mediterranean. In fact after Nicholas Sarkozy¹s trip to Algeria, as part of 
a tour to promote the creation of a Mediterranean Union, an Iranian delegation 
led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived with a counter-proposal for the creation of 
an alternative bloc; this was what the Iranians called an Islamic Union.

The Islamic Union is essentially a rival economic project to the Mediterranean 
Union in the Mediterranean lands of North Africa and the Middle East, rather 
than the institutionalization of Islam within any of these states. Undoubtedly, 
the Iranian proposal must have had some backdoor support from Moscow. It is more
than likely that the Islamic Union will be linked in some form to the Eurasian 
Union proposed by Russia and Kazakhstan. These regional blocs can be overlapping
and countries like Iran can hypothetically belong to the Eurasian Union and the 
Islamic Union, just as how France and Italy could belong to the E.U. and the 
proposed Mediterranean Union. This is also part of the brinkmanship of turning 
several regions into supranational entities and ultimately into super-national 
entities that would merge with like entities.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the so-called Mid-East Peace Process, essentially 
including the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia in 2002, are tied 
to the joint American-E.U. economic project that is the Mediterranean Union, 
which will see the integration of the economies of the Arab World with that of 
Israel in a network of regionalized economic relations that will ultimately 
merge the economies of Europe, Israel, Turkey, and the Arab World. The 
Mediterranean Union is a project that was drafted years before the end of the 
Cold War and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. The deep ties 
between Turkey and Israel have been a preparatory step towards eventually 
establishing this Mediterranean Union with the participation and full 
involvement of Israel as one of its pillars.

The Bloc Concept and Regionalization: Orwellian Showdown between Oceania and 

The players of the Eurasian Heartland realize what is happening. Moreover, 
France and Germany, like India, are being courted by the players of the Eurasian
Heartland to encourage them to de-link themselves from the Anglo-American axis.
This is probably why the euro is not being targeted on international currency 
markets by Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and China in the same way as the U.S. 
dollar. Or is this because America is the immediate threat to these countries?

The Eurasians are slowly prying the hold of Western financial centres on global 
transactions. The establishment of a petro-ruble system in Russia and the 
republics of the former U.S.S.R., as well as the establishment of an 
international Iranian energy bourse on Kish Island are part of this trend.

However, it seems too late to end the concord between the Franco-German and 
Anglo-American sides. Franco-German interests appear to have become entrenched 
with Anglo-American interests. A deal has been reached to eventually merge, with
regard to trading systems, the economies of the E.U. and North America that will
guarantee the interests of Britain, the U.S., France, and Germany.[12] This deal
will also allow the four major powers within the so-called Western World to 
challenge the Eurasian Heartland as it merges into a single powerful bloc or 

Whenever a dominate player has started to emerge in the Eurasian Heartland there
have historically been wars fought ‹ even the fear of the emergence of one has 
been the cause of conflict ‹ to prevent the ascendancy of such a power or 
player. These different stages of regionalism and regionalized mergers mean 
several things, but what this can mean in Orwellian terms is that Oceania and 
Eurasia are preparing to challenge one another. [13]

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing
in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research
on Globalization (CRG).


This article is a continuation of The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging 
America¹ Ambitions in Eurasia (Nazemroaya, 26.08.2007) and lightly touches on 
the concept of the Mediterranean Union, which is covered in an article yet to be

[1] Halford John Mackinder, Chap. 3 (The Seaman¹s Point of View), in Democratic 
Ideals and Reality (London, U.K.: Constables and Company Ltd., 1919), p.91.

[2] Ibid., Chap. 4 (The Landman¹s Point of View), p.121.

Note: This chapter in Democratic Ideals and Reality is based on an essay, 
Man-power as a Measure of National and Imperial Strength, that Mackinder wrote 
for the National Review (U.K.) in 1905. It should also be noted that Mackinder 
and various circles in London viewed the large populations of Germany, 
Austro-Hungary, and the Czardom of Russia as threats that should be addressed. 
If one reads the full works of Mackinder they will come to realize that he 
advocated for some form of Social Darwinism amongst nations, and saw democratic 
idealism as a subject that should be put aside to preserve the British imperial 
order. Mackinder even states that the commerce that the British enjoyed was due 
to the use of British guns and force (Chap. 5, pp.187-188).

[3] Ibid., p.142.

[4] Lonnie R. Johnson, Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends, 2nd ed. 
(Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 37-42.

[5] Mackinder, Democratic Ideals, Op. cit., Chap. 5 (The Rivalry of Empires), 

[6] Ibid., Chap. 3, p.78.

[7] Ibid., pp.77-78.

[8] Ibid., p.78.

[9] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden 
(San Pedro, California: GSG & Associates Publishers, 1981), pp. 233-235, 
237-248, 253, 264-281, 285-302.

³...from 1920 to 1938 [the aims were] the same: to maintain the balance of power
in Europe by building up Germany against France and [the Soviet Union]; to 
increase Britain¹s weight in that balance by aligning with her the Dominions 
[e.g., Australia and Canada] and the United States; to refuse any commitments 
(especially any commitments through the League of Nations, and above all any 
commitments to aid France) beyond those existing in 1919; to keep British 
freedom of action; to drive Germany eastward against [the Soviet Union] if 
either or both of these two powers became a threat to the peace [probably 
meaning economic strength] of Western Europe (p.240).²

³...the Locarno agreements guaranteed the frontier of Germany with France and 
Belgium with the powers of these three states plus Britain and Italy. In reality
the agreements gave France nothing, while they gave Britain a veto over French 
fulfillment of her alliances with Poland and the Little Entente. The French 
accepted these deceptive documents for reason of internal politics (...) This 
trap [the Locarno agreements] consisted of several interlocking factors. In the 
first place, the agreements did not guarantee the German frontier and the 
demilitarized condition of the Rhineland against German actions, but against the
actions of either Germany or France. This, at one stroke, gave Britain the right
to oppose any French action against Germany in support of her allies to the east
of Germany. This meant that if Germany moved east against Czechoslovakia, 
Poland, and eventually [the Soviet Union], and if France attacked Germany¹s 
western frontier in support of Czechoslovakia or Poland, as her alliances bound 
her to do, Great Britain, Belgium, and Italy might be bound by the Locarno Pacts
to come to the aid of Germany (p.264).²

³This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the 
most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory
west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the 
river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the 
Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, 
Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western 
Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily 
driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be 
impossible to go eastward. And by this date [1936], certain members of the 
Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the 
fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany 
and [the Soviet Union] against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they 
felt that two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become 
satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never 
occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and [the Soviet Union]
might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it 
occur to them that [the Soviet Union] might beat Germany and thus open all 
Central Europe to Bolshevism (p.265).²

³In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against 
[the Soviet Union], it was necessary to do three things: (1) to liquidate all 
the countries standing between Germany and Russia; (2) to prevent France from 
honoring her alliances with these countries [i.e., Czechoslovakia and Poland]; 
and (3) to hoodwink the [British] people into accepeting this as a necessary, 
indeed, the only solution to the international problem. The Chamberlain group 
were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of 
succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly 
haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group 
realized the [geo-strategic] implications of their policy and tried to reverse 
it (p.266).²

³Four days later, Hitler announced Germany¹s rearmament, and ten days after 
that, Britain condoned the act by sending Sir John Simon on a state visit to 
Berlin. When France tried to counterbalance Germany¹s rearmament by bringing the
Soviet Union into her eastern alliance system in May 1935, the British 
counteracted this by making the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 18 June 1935. 
This agreement, concluded by Simon, allowed Germany to build up to 35 percent of
the size of the British Navy (and up to 100 percent in submarines). This was a 
deadly stab in the back of France, for it gave Germany a navy considerably 
larger than the French in the important categories of ships (capital ships and 
aircraft carriers), because France was bound by treaty to only 33 percent of 
Britain¹s; and France in addition, had a worldwide empire to protect and the 
unfriendly Italian Navy off her Mediterranean coast. This agreement put the 
French Atlantic coast so completely at the mercy of the German Navy that France 
became completely dependent on the British fleet for protection in this area 

³The liquidation of the countries between Germany and [the Soviet Union] could 
proceed as soon as the Rhineland was fortified, without fear on Germany¹s part 
that France would be able to attack her in the west while she was occupied in 
the east (p.272).²

³The countries marked for liquidation included Austria, Czechoslovakia, and 
Poland, but did not include Greece and Turkey, since the [Milner] Group had no 
intention of allowing Germany to get down onto the Mediterranean Œlifeline.¹ 
Indeed, the purpose of the Hoare-Laval Plan of 1935, which wrecked the 
collective-security system by seeking to give most Ethiopia to Italy, was 
intended to bring an appeased Italy in position alongside [Britain], in order to
block any movement of Germany southward rather than eastward [towards the Soviet
Union] (p.273).²

[10] Mackinder, Democratic Ideals, Op. cit., Chap. 5, pp.160-168.

[11] Ibid., Chap. 6 (The Freedom of Nations), pp. 214-215.

[12] US and EU agree 'single market,' British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), 
April 30, 2007.

[13] Critical thinking should be applied to this last statement and the level of
cooperation between both sides should be carefully examined.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of 
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on 

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on 
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The 
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global 
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, 
contact: •••@••.••• contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such 
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social 
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair 
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is:

© Copyright 2005-2007
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

Posting archives:

Escaping the Matrix website:
cyberjournal website:

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework:

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)