POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY QUARTERLY,

Supplement to Vol.

5, No. 4, October 1986, X2-S%

The revival of geopolitics

LESLIE W. HEPPLE

Department of Geography, Uniuersity of Bristol, Bristol BS8 lSS, England

ABSTRACT. This paper chronicles the revival of geopolitical writing and analysis
in North America and Europe since 1970, after 20 years of decline. The revival is
examined in terms of both language and substance, and the reasons for the revival
are explored. As well as its role in the analysis of global and regional strategy,
geopolitics has entered popular language and political discourse. The contributions of geographers are discussed, and the opportunities and dangers of the
revival are examined. The importance of historical and political critique is argued.

When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, it means just
what I choose it to mean-neither
more nor less (Lewis Carroll: Through the
Looking Glass).

. revival of the term geopolitics is probably premature and may remain so as

long as most people associate the term with the inhuman policies of Hitlers Third
Reich (Pounds, 1963: 410).
Gee-politics are very big in Washington these days. I believe they were invented
by Dr Kissinger, and they are certainly the last thing he thinks about before going
to sleep. William Fuibright doesnt like them at all, but the President absolutely
loves them and plays with them all the time, or so we are told (Graham, 1970:
356).

on campuses all over the country, musty old geographers are blossoming out
as shiny new geo-politicians (Thorndike, 1942; quoted by Jones, 1959: 253).
Most geopolitical concepts now are academically respected, and political
analyses based upon these approaches no longer encounter the Hitlerian geo~o~~~jkstigma once given them in the decades following World War II (Kelly,

1986: 162).

For most of the 40 years since the end of World War LI, geopolitics, both as a term and as a
form of analysis, has been in disrepute, and largely neglected in both North America and
Europe. Yet in the last decade the term geopolitics has crept back into use, and geopolitical
analysis of both global and regional problems has become more common. Since 1980 many
books have appeared with geopolitics or geopolitical in their titles, the term is widely
used in the media and political discussion, and is the subject of many academic and policy
articles.
0260-9827186104

SO21-16 $03.00

@ 1986 Butterworth

& Co (Publishers)

Ltd

The revival of geapolitks

S22

This revival of geopolitics has several different strands within it, and writers tend, like
Humpty Dumpty, to make the word mean what they want, or leave its meaning ambiguous.
The aim of this paper is to trace and examine this revival, and if possible to explain it. It
should be emphasized that the sequence of decline and revival discussed here applies to
geopolitics in North America and Europe, but not to the extensive South American geopolitical literature. The latter tradition has nourished and expanded throughout the period
(Child, 1985), with considerable political impact, but because it has been largely unknown
outside South America and has had little impact on geopolitical thought outside that region,
it is excluded from the present study.
The revival of geopolitics is easiest to trace at the level of geopolitical language and
terminology. It is important, of course, not to become obsessed by mere language, or, in
0 Tuathails (1986) phrase, to fetishize geopolitical language and so miss questions of
substance. However, language is a valuable entry-point, which enables one to trace different
and conflicting usages, and this paper argues that the linguistic changes do correspond, at
least in part, to real changes in substantive content and analysis.

The decline

of geopolitics

A logical prerequisite for any revival is a decline from a period of earlier activity. This section
examines this decline in the post- 194 5 period.
The defeat of Germany in 1945 and the death of Karl Haushofer in 1946 meant the end
of his school of German geopolitics. The end of the war also extinguished the geopolitical
traditions in the other Axis countries such as Italy and Japan, though these traditions are
very little known (see, however, Takeuchi, 1980). The demise of these approaches to geopolitics is hardly surprising. More surprising is the decline of American interest, which had
blossomed in the early 1940s as American writers, both geographers and political scientists,
had discovered and analysed German geopolitical writing. Some of these American writers
(notably Spykman, Strausz-Hupe and Renner), although highly criticai of German geopolitics, argued that a ~e~~~o~~t~~
geopolitical approach could benefit the United States, not
only in defeating the Axis, but in the postwar world. Others, such as Weigert (1942), were
even more critical of the whole concept of geopolitics, but argued that Mackinders balance
of power approach had considerable merit. Yet from the late 1940s such flirtation and
enthusiasm had all but disappeared from American writing. Similarly the prewar French
critical interest in geopolitics disappeared with the end of the war (and the death of Ancel
during the war).
The decline of geopolitics is most easily chronicled at the level of geopolitical language
and terminology. The association with German~eo~~~i~~k was almost fatal. There does not
seem to be any book-title in English using the term geopolitics between the 1940s and
Grays Geopolitics ofthe Nuclear Em in 1977 (with the exception of Sens Basic Principles
of Geopoliticsand History, published in India in 1975) nor are there many papers in either
geographical or political journals. Most are historical and critical, epitaphs rather than
contemporary
reviews or new contributions.
When Kristof (1960) wrote his highly
scholarly study of the history of geopolitics, he suggested, in a very balanced and thoughtful
way, that geopolitics retained a value and that its neglect could be both politically and
intellectually dangerous. The responses were very critical. Alexander (1961) argued that
anything of value in geopolitics was encompassed by political geography, and that geopolitics should be abandoned completely as a working term, except for use in its historical
Similarly Pounds (1963) argued that any revival of the term was very
connotations.
premature.

LESLE

W. HEPPLE

s23

This evidence of a decline should not, however, be overstated as a total demise. In West
Germany the Zeitschrift fiir
Geopolitik was revived in 1951 and continued, as a conservative international
politics journal with limited circulation, until 1968. In France
Admiral C&rier published his short Gbopolitigue et Gbostrut&gie in the Que Sais-Je? series
in 195 5 (Cttlttrier, 195 5), and some English and American political geographers used
geopolitical as shorthand for politico-geographical
(East and Moodie, 1956). But the
overall picture of the 1950s and 1960s is one of geopolitics being avoided and relegated to
the historical sections of texts in both political geography and political science, and the word
itself having little currency in academic or policy debates.
This decline is, of course, at the level of geopolitical language, and it could be argued that
whilst geopolitics as a term was avoided because of its Nazi connotations,
geopolitical
interpretation
and analysis continued, but sailed under such other colours as strategic
studies or even political geography.
To some extent this is true, especially within political geography. A number of geographers continued to review and explore geopolitical perspectives, especially the global
views of heartland, rimland and containment. Examples are East and Spate (1950), East and
Moodie (1956), Jones (1955) and Prescott (1968). Whilst this work retained an interest in
Mackinderesque global perspectives, it distanced itself from both German geopolitik and
geopolitics in general, trying to draw a clear distinction between geopolitics and political
geography (a distinction political geographers have been trying to draw since at least 1905 !),
and to assimilate or domesticate geopolitical perspectives into academic and objective
political geography. At a period when geography had a tendency to be rather inward-looking
and isolated from developments and theorizing in the other social sciences, the result was to
depoliticize the concepts and remove them from public and political debate [though in the
early years of the Cold War, East and Spates (1950) discussion of heartland theory was seen
by Soviet critics, such as Semjonow (1955), as part of the anti-Soviet, German-American
imperialist geopolitical tradition]. A notable exception to this trend was Cohen (1963).
Cohens study not only used the term geopolitics, but developed new geopolitical
perspectives and related them to policy prescription. His work was, however, rather alien to
the climate of the times, and attracted a good deal of critical comment from other political
geographers (e.g. the discussion in Prescott, 1968), and its very singularity indicates the
decline that had taken place in geopolitics. Cohens continuing work is discussed later as
part of the revival of geopolitics.
Within the political science, strategic studies and international relations literature, the
decline of geopolitical perspectives-substance
as well as terminology-was
even more
marked. The Sprouts continued to explore man-nature
relations, though in rather philosophical vein and avoiding any contact with Germangeopolitik
(Sprout and Sprout, 1956),
and it is this ecological perspective, with its successors in the global ecological crisis
modelling literature, that is reflected in standard texts such as Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff
(1981). The various recent geopolitical studies (e.g. Walters, 1975; Gray, 1977; Zoppo
and Zorgbibe, 1985) also find little relevant literature, even under other names, from the
period 1950-1970.
Undoubtedly geopolitics continued to be taught in military academies
and staff colleges, and occasionally this aspect surfaced in publication (e.g. the collection of
articles in the USAFs Military Aspects of World Political Geography, 1958), but again this
generated little new literature, analysis or contribution
to public debate. Overall the
conclusion must be that geopolitical writing declined in both language and substance.
A further level remains for examination. The decline of geopolitical analysis, both in
language and substance, does not necessarily mean foreign policy was not guided by geopolitical ideas. The United States policy of containment, which emerged in the late 194Os,

S24

The revival of geopolitics

needs examination in this light. Giddens (1984) has argued that it is peculiarly difficult to
trace the detailed influence of social and political ideas once they have entered general
discourse and political practice: the consequences are likely to be tortuous and ramified
(Giddens, 1985: 350). Geopolitics is no exception to this. W. H. Parker (1982) has
recorded how Matkinders terms world-island and heartland entered political language,
and Mackin~rs
general concepts were known to a whole generation of US policy-makers
and analysts. There is disagreement as to the extent to which George Kennan, one of the
architects of containment policy, was specifically indebted to Mackinders ideas (Parker,
1982: 192), but undoubtedly the Mackinder-Spykman
literature of the 1940s contributed
to the emergence of US policies of containment.
Gaddiss recent history of US strategies of containm~t
(Gaddis, 1982) interprets the
policies of the different US administrations as being geopolitical codes, and identifies five
distinct geopolitical codes of containment in the postwar era. In particular, Gaddis links
the period of perimeter defense in the early 1950s following directive NSC-68 as closely
related to Spykmans rimland concept, and sees the entire containment policy as related to
Mackinders
ideas. This is in hindsight, with geopolitical connections
once again
respectable, and to some extent fashionable. The question must be, why, if containment
was, at least in part, geopolitically based, was it not debated in get political terms during the
1950s and 196Os? This is a complex issue, and has partly to do with the intellectual
outlooks of the policy-makers and analysts (such as Kennans
distaste for general
theorizing), but a critical element was the emergence of nuclear strategy as the cornerstone
of US global policy.
The emergence of nuclear weapons and the ability to project them by aircraft and missile
over vast distances became not only the central aspect of US deterrence strategy, but seemed
to make mere geography irrelevant. Neither distance nor geographical configuration seemed
so significant. The Dulles-Eisenhower
New Look policy of 1953-1961
used the nuclear
threat to deter communist aggression and expansionism (Gaddis, 1982). Under this nuclear
umbrella, discussion of the geopolitics of rimland strong-points and heartland advantages
appeared much less important. It was the nuclear balance that was crucial, and strategic
debate became, and largely remains, a question of nuclear deterrence, arms race gaming and
arms control strategy. It was this shift to nuclear deterrence and confrontation that, as much
as a disreputable history, led to a decline in geopolitical theorizing. But the combination of
these two causes had an undesirable and in many ways tragic effect: for almost a quarter of a
century, although there was no shortage of specific comment and analysis, US global policy
was not subject in public debate to any coherent, overall geopolitical critique. Equally
important was the parallel neglect of Soviet global strategy.

The beginnings

of revival

The roots of a revival in geopolitical reflection and writing lie in the changing international
The bipolar USA-USSR
world-view and the
political and economic environment.
associated policy of containment that underpinned US foreign policy became increasingly
out of focus with the changing world. Decolo~zation, the rise of Third World nationalism
(and later of Muslim fundamentalism),
the Cuban revolution and growth of revolutionary
movements elsewhere, and the Sino-Soviet split-all
these changes, and many others,
pointed to a growing multipolarity and complexity in international politics during the late
1950s and especially the 1960s. This was paralleled by a growth in Soviet military and naval
power with some (albeit limited) ability to project itself well beyond the Eurasian landmass
(for example, Admiral Gorshkovs
blue water navy). The inflexibility of nuclear

LESLIEW. HJSPPLE

S25

deterrence when dealing with regional problems was also becoming more apparent, and the
nuclear threat relied on a clear US superiority, which was disappearing by the 1970s. These
political, military and strategic changes were also accompanied by economic changes, such
as the rise in energy prices and the emergence of OPEC, which also reflected declining
relative US power in the world-economy.
The revival of geopolitics lies in the response, by both analysts and policy-makers, to
these changing international
circumstances and to the increasingly apparent cracks and
holes in the logic of existing US global strategy.
These circumstances might in themse!ves have been sufficient to revitalize geopolitical
reflection, even if the term geopolitics were avoided. However, in many ways the very
decline of geopolitics in the period 1950-1970
provided good conditions for the rebirth of
the term. Time can be a good healer, and many had in fact forgotten the terms association
with Hitlers regime, or never knew of it, an ignorance helped by general absence of further
historical studies of German geopolitics. In addition, memories of the Third Reich generally
were fading, at least in the West. The necessary conditions were therefore present in the late
1960s for a revival of geopolitics, and these may have proved sufficient. But a key trigger in
the revival was the extensive use of the term by Henry Kissinger. Kissingers geopolitics not
only signalled the rebirth of Western geopolitical writing, but also gave it substantial
impetus in new directions. Because Kissingers use of the term had such an impact, it is
worth examining his writing in some detail.

Kissingers

geopolitics

Kissinger became President Nixons National Security Adviser after the November 1968
election, and later US Secretary of State. As part of his rethinking and redirection of US
foreign policy, Kissinger made great play of the term geopolitics. This use, by both Kissinger
and Nixon, in speeches and writing, brought the term into the popular press and magazines
such as Time, Newsweek, Fortune, New Republic and the Spectator, and subsequently into
popular language. Full demonstration of Kissingers impact on the press would require an
extensive media study and content analysis for the early 1970s. [Graham (1970) comments
satirically that geo-politics was in fact initially a typists error for ego-politics, which
Graham sees as an apt description of Nixons politics!]
Kissingers use of the term needs some investigation. Several writers have examined
Kissingers politics without mentioning
his use of geopolitics, but emphasizing other
Kissinger terms such as linkage (Litwak, 1984). However, the role of his use of geopolitics
appears most clearly in his memoirs White House Years (Kissinger, 1979), and two major
review essays (from different sides of the Atlantic) have identified the key role of geopolitics
in Kissingers perspective (Bull, 1980; Henrikson, 1981). White House Years contains
numerous references to geopolitical importance (p. 1265), geopolitical interests (pp. 59,
1074, lOS9), geopolitical reality (p. 1053), geopolitical challenge (pp. 125, 1256),
geopolitical ambitions (p. 764), geopolitical consequences (p. 205), and many others.
As both Bull and Henrikson note, Kissingers use of the term is somewhat individual,
and the geographical content of Kissingers geopolitics is not always clear. Kissinger
associates it with global equilibrium and permanent national interests in the world balance of
power. He opposes it to both liberal policies of idealism and conservative policies of total
ideological anti-communism:
But an essentially geopolitical point of view found no understanding among those
who conducted the public discourse on foreign policy in our country. (By geo-

S26
political I mean an approach that pays attention to the requirements of equilibrium
Nixon and 1 wanted to found American foreign poolicy on a sober
perception of permanent national interest rather than on fluctuating emotions that
in the past had led us to excesses of both intervention and abdication (Kissinger,
1979: 914).

and:
There is in America an idealistic tradition that sees foreign policy as a contest
between evit and good. There is a pragmatic tradition that seeks to solve
problems as they arise. There is a legalistic tradition that treats international
issues as juridical cases. There is no geopolitical tradition (Kissinger, 1979: 915).
Elsewhere

he does identify

such a tradition

in Americas

past:

Admiral Mahans perception of the role of sea power proved that Americans
could think profoundly in geopolitical terms. The methods by which we acquired
the Philippines and the Panama Canal proved that power politics was not totally
neglected (Kissinger, 1979: 59).

specific content of Kissingers geopolitics was mainly (though not exclusively)

concerned with the desirability of new US relations with Communist China:

The

Equilibrium was the name of the game. We did not seek to join China in a
provocative confrontation with the Soviet Union. But we agreed on the necessity
to curb Moscows geopolitical ambitions (Kissinger, 1979: 764).
Pekings challenge was polemic and philosophical: it opposed not only Moscows
geopolitical aspirations but also its ideological preeminence. We agreed on the
necessity of thwarting the geopolitical ambitions, but we had no reason to become
involved in the ideological dispute (Kissinger, 1979: 764).

Kissingers use of the term is thus part of an attempt to turn American foreign policy
towards a realpohik (though Kissingers only use of this term is ironical) balance--of-power
perspective. He is concerned to thwart Soviet expansionism, but sees US containment policy
as excessively ideological, based too much on a military, rather than political, concept of the
balance of power. Growing Soviet power had destroyed the earlier strategic equilibriuman eroding of strategic equilibrium was bound to have geopolitical consequences (p. 205)
-and with US relative power declining (as exemplified by the Vietnam agony), Kissingers
aim was to restore a balance of power, but retain political flexibility.
Bull (1980) argues that Kissingers use of the term geopolitics has scant regard for
established usage, in which the term connotes a concern for geographical factors in international politics (Bull, 1980: 485). Certainly Kissingers writing contains no detailed geographical discussion, and he leaves the term rather vague, but the spatial component is
clearly present, as the quotations above show, and the connections to the line of thought
from Mahan and Mackinder to Spykman are reasonably clear. Kissingers perspective is,
however, based on the need to derive a balance of power in an increasingly multipolar world.
His choice to use the term does, however, raise some questions. Born in a small Bavarian
town, Kissinger knew Nazi persecution as a small child, and he must have been aware of the
terms history. Henrikson (198 1) argues that its use is deliberately provocative, to annoy
his former liberal colleagues. An alternative view is that it was simply the best English word
available (realpolitik has never really got into the English language). Whatever the reason for
choosing it, Kissingers use of the term geopolitics does leave its precise meaning somewhar
vague.

LESLIEW. HEPPLE

S27

Kissingers geopolitics produced (or at least signalled) two different directions in the
revival of geopolitics. It led, by example and reaction, to further reflection on global strategy
in the geopolitical tradition. Secondly, and perhaps in the end more significantly, it
popularized the word geopolitics, which entered the language in a way which it never had
before, though at the substantial price of ambiguity and confusion of meaning.
The geopolitics

of global

strategy

The 1970s saw several attempts to rethink the geopolitics of US global strategy. Two
notable, but rather different, examples are Walters (1975) and Gray (1977).
Walters (1975) argues that Western strategy since 1945 has been based on a geopolitical
perspective, but an erroneous one. His analysis is focused on these false assumptions, rather
than on the changing world political scene, though the latter is also important to some of his
conclusions. Walters, like Kissinger, tries to map out a position distinct from both the
idealistic liberals and the ideological conservatives who have shown a complete absence of
constructive thought over this period (Walters, 1975: 8). He argues that Mackinders
heartland theory lies at the core of Western strategy, with its assumption that the Soviet
Union has a superior geographical and strategic position, especially as regards Europe.
Walters goes on to argue that nuclear weapons, and the strategy of nuclear deterrence,
would never have occupied their place in Western strategic thinking without the Heartland
theory (Walters, 1975: 10):
Some have suggested that the place of geopolitics has diminished in the nuclear
age. In fact, the place of the nuclear deterrent itself has resulted from certain
geopolitical assumptions, and Western strategy as a whole has been imprisoned
inside a global outlook which has closed the doors to reasonable alternatives
(Walters, 1975: 12).

Walters thesis is that nuclear deterrence was given such a prominent role in Western
strategy because the United States believed the Soviet heartland had overwhelming strategic
advantage in Europe in terms of conventional warfare. This belief was, in Walters view, too
pessimistic: with adequate conventional forces the West could successfully defend Europe
against Soviet aggression. Citing Liddell Hart, Waiters claims that advantage lies more with
the defender than the aggressor. The remedy is a strategy based on good conventional forces,
allied to strong naval power. Walters also believes that technology, and specifically largescale ships and submarines, is shifting the global balance back towards sea power, and so
favouring the West.
Gray (1977), in a study that has made more impact on the strategic studies community,
also draws on Mahan. Mackinder and Spykman, but his interpretation
is somewhat
different. His argument is that US foreign policy has increasingly ignored the geopolitical
realities of Soviet expansionism, and needs to focus more sharply on national interest and
power politics. Many of his themes echo Kissinger, yet it is the policy of detente which is his
main target. Like Kissinger and Walters, he agrees that an obsession with nuclear theorizing
has obfuscated the continuing
relevance of geopolitics, but Gray argues that strategic
negotiations (such as SALT and MBFR talks) and the policy of detente have been based on
the wrong assumption that Soviet officials believe in stable power refationships and
equilibrium; in reality, Gray argues, Soviet ideology is remorselessly expansionist, and
USA-USSR relationships should be viewed in terms of the competition of land power and
sea power. If the USSR can achieve hemispheric denial (i.e. exclude the USA from
influence in the Eurasian landmass), and project its power beyond that landmass, then the
battle is lost.

The revival of geopolitics

S28

Since the late 1970s numerous

other
perspectives
on global strategy.
In 1982
founded

in Paris, to strengthen

solidarity

studies have revived the use of geopolitical

an International
Institute
of Geopolitics
was

among the Western

democracies

in the face of the

Soviet empires initiatives in pursuit of hegemony

(Klein, 1985). It also publishes the proNATO journal G$opolitique. A NATO Scientific Division symposium
was published in
Zoppo

and Zorgbibe

(1985).

This study both reviews

classical

geopolitics,

and examines

their applicability in the nuclear era. Zoppo (1985) in particular explores this question
also Zoppo, 1982). Although
geopolitical asymmetries
favour the Soviet bloc:

(see

in the geopolitics of nuclear deterrence, technology has replaced geography in

importance, while the psychological aspects of major power politics have gained
the ascendancy in their strategic policies. Technology cannot obviously replace
geographic attributes. For all that, the technology of the nuclear age has been so
revolutionary in its impact on geography that it has practically replaced it as the
basic factor of geopolitics (Zoppo, 1985: 153).
The tendency
of this literature
is to take a rather restricted
view of both traditional
geopolitics
(excluding
the Germanic
tradition,
and limiting it to global issues), and of
geographical
factors (tending to limit them to physical configurations
and space, and
ignoring human distributions).
It also tends to assimilate geopolitics to power politics, to
give an overwhelming
role to technology,
and so to assume that geopolitical relationships
emerge naturalistically,
without the intervention
of social and political structures
and
theories.
An alternative
(1979),

perspective,

who claims

global rivalry

that

(Jay, 1979:

Good regionalism

one that in the end may be more geographical,

Geopolitics
486),

is, definitionally,

but, in Kissinger

is good geopolitics;

is given by Jay

the art and process

tradition,

and bad regionalism

of managing

links this to regional

is bad geopolitics

politics:

(Jay, 1979:

485). Other recent studies include Deudney (1983), the geopolitical atlas of Chaliand and
Rageau (1983), which begins with geopolitical
world-views,
and Freedmans
Atlas of
Global Strategy (Freedman,

1985),

which

also begins

with a consideration

of geopolitics.

Some geographers
have also made recent contributions
to the geopolitics of global strategy,
such as OSullivans
highly critical study of the geopolitics
of deterrence
(OSullivan,
1985),

Lacostes

study of the geography

risks of decoupling
European
Jenkins study of the different

of the Euromissiles

(cruise and Pershing

II) and the

and American
strategy (Lacoste, 1983), and Pepper and
geopolitical
situations
of the USSR and USA in terms of

nuclear vulnerability
and siting, and the way this affects their perceptions
and fears (Pepper
and Jenkins, 1984). The neglect of these issues in much of the other geopolitical literature is
remarkable.

The

popularization

Kissingers

second

of geopolitics
legacy

was

to popularize

the

term

geopolitics

and

the

adjective

geopolitical.
This is less a revival than a new phenomenon.
Since Rudolf Kjellen coined the
term in 1899, geopolitics has probably never had, even in interwar Germany, this popular
currency in the media, journalism
and policy discussion.
The difficulty is that, again as a
Kissinger legacy, the exact meaning of the term is vague. This is, of course, true of many
terms, not least geographical
itself, but geopolitics seems especially vulnerable.
It appears
as a disembodied
term, with no known history, and can variously mean global-strategic,
ideological
East-West
conflict,
regional-political,
geographical
contextual,
or
nothing

very clear at all. It is used to title magazine

contents

(e.g.

the Geopolitics

of

LESLIE W. HEFPLE

s29

Famine was a New Republic title), but the substantive contents may make no references to
geopolitics or geography. It carries connotations of hard-headed, no-nonsense realism, with
the writer (and reader) facing up to geopolitical realities.
This is not to say that all, or even most, studies employing the term are superficial or
misleading. On the contrary, many are penetrating and perceptive contributions,
opening
up new themes. Geopolitics serves as an umbrella term, encapsulating the interaction of
global and regional issues with economic and local structures. But the term geopolitics often
appears only in the title, introduction and conclusions, with no linkage to other geopolitical
literature, and with the major analysis being conducted using other political and economic
intellectual frameworks, usually with little geography and few maps. A few examples can
illustrate these points.
Smith (I 980) in The Geopolitics of Information examines the role of news, media and
other information in the growing domination of the world by Western culture, commenting:
We are beginning to learn that de-colonization and the growth of supranationalism were not the termination of imperial relationships but merely the
extending of a gee-poiitical web which has been spinning since the Renaissance
(Smith, 1980: 176).
The relevance of Smiths analysis to global geopolitics is ciear, yet his study contains few
other references to geopolitics. Energy politics and economics are of increasing geopolitical
significance (though rather ignored by most global geopolitical literature), and Russell
(1983) examines the growing importance of Soviet natural gas for the Western European
economies, and its geopolitical implications. There is rather more use of geopolitical in
Russells text, but the major framework is economic, and there are no geopolitical or
g~graphical references in the bibliography. Hartrichs The A~e~i~un Op~ortu~~t~ (1983)
argues that ecopolitics (by which he means economic power, not ecological politics) will
replace geopolitics (based on military power) in global importance, and this will allow the
USA to surge ahead of the USSR. Bulliers Gdopolitiques de /Apartheid (1982) is a very
appropriate title for an analysis of the territorial logic of South Africas policies, yet again the
intellectual analysis and references owe little to either geopolitics or geography.
The use of geopolitical language has become especially prevalent in discussions of US
foreign policy in Central America and the Caribbean. The Reagan administration
has
deployed geopolitical terminology and arguments in its policies (0 Tuathail, 1986), though
Republican
policy discussion remains rather unconnected
with formal geopolitical
theorizing, with the influential and interesting exception of Ambassador Lewis Tambs and
the Sante Fe Group. Other discussion of US geopolitics in the region reflects the vagueness
of the term. For example, a theme issue of Caribbean Review, entitled The New
Geopolitics, contains hardly any use of the term, even though it contains articles across the
political spectrum. Other writers are more specific, such as Levine (1983) who contrasts
strategic
East-West
geopolitical
considerations
against English-Spanish
cultural
competition as forces in Caribbean politics, whilst Black (1982) recognizes the geopolitical
crisis in Central America, and argues that it reflects the general decline of US power and the
specific role of the American Sunbelt in Reagans political base. A study by the Nicaraguan
Gorostiaga (1985) is the most sustained geopolitical analysis. He also argues, like Black and
0 Tuathail, that US geopolitics in Central America is a response to declining world power,
but goes on to argue for an alternative regional project for Central America and the
Caribbean, which must incorporate a new economic vision of geopolitics, based on a
North-South
context rather than an East-West confrontation (Gorostiaga, 1985).
Gorostiagas study moves furthest in the direction of building a formal geopolitical

The revival ofgeopolitics

530

analysis-though
it is somewhat heavily economistic-but
the general conclusion about the
diffusion and popularization of the terms geopolitics and geopolitical is that they serve as
vague umbrella terms for studies of regional political and economic issues, and their links
to global policies and conflicts. The problems are real, the analyses often make considerable
contributions,
but the intellectual frameworks and theories have, in general, little geopolitical or geographical content. This literature leaves a sense of dissatisfaction. of searching
for, but not finding, an appropriate way of handling these issues.

The geographers

contribution

The involvement of geographers in this revival of geopolitics has, in general, come only
recently. There are several reasons for this: the desire to dissociate political geography from
geopolitics, the general decline of political geography in the face of the new geography, and
a retreat away from worldwide and overseas studies towards intranationa1 urban and
regional specialisms. It is with the major revival of political geography in the last 5 -8 years,
and a reawakening interest in worldwide perspectives (see Taylor, 1985, for a reflection of
both these changes), that there has been a surge of interest in geopolitics. In the last few
years texts on geopolitics have appeared (G. Parker, 1985; OSullivan, 1986), together with
lengthy reviews (Brunn and Mingst, 1985). The appearance of texts titled geopolitics in
both Germany (Hennings and Rhode-Juchtem,
1985) and Italy (Bonasera, 1982) is an
especially clear signal of the revival. Another nice illustration of the sea-change can be found
in the work of ihe French geographer, Pierre George. In fn G&gru@ie active (George et
al., 1964), George rejected both the term geopolitics (the worst caricature of applied
geography in the first part of the 20th century has been geopolitics) and geopolitical
analysis (see the discussion of this in Lacoste, 1981), yet in 1984 George published G&opolitique des Minoritis, arguing the case for a geopolitical analysis of minority problems
(George, 1984).
This revival has been made up of several different strands, and has attracted conservatives, liberals, radicals and quantifiers. First there has been a general willingness by
traditional political geographers to use the adjective geopolitical where it would have
been avoided previously, and to explore more fulIy the political implications of their
analyses. Notably, Cohens pioneer work on geopolitical perspectives for a multipolar world,
first suggested in 1963 at the nadir of postwar geopolitics, has been continued by him
(Cohen, 1982) and by others, with renewed enthusiasm and confidence. Fuller details of
these approaches can be found in recent reviews by Brunn and Mingst (1985) and
OLoughlin (1986b); see also the extensive general bibliography of geopolitics by Enggass
(1984). Some of the cont~butions to global strategic debate have been noted in an earlier
section. A second, rather different, strand has been the development of a behavioural
geopolitics, constructing behavioural and statistical models of the international diffusion of
wars and conflicts across frontiers. This is an approach being developed by both geographers
(OLoughlin, 1986a) and political scientists (Most and Starr, 1980). OSullivans recent
text, simply titled Geopolitics (OSullivan, 1986), presents a blend of historical and policyoriented discussion of global geopolitical issues, with more behavioural work on linkages,
diffusion and game-theoretic approaches.
A third strand comes from those influenced by Marxist or neo-Marxist theory. Their
theoretical base gives them a perspective for both a critique of eariier geopolitics (seen as
imperialist rivalries within core capitalism), and for a reconstruction of contemporary geopolitics based upon economic relationships and particularly on the role of capitalism in the
world-economy (Taylor, 1985). The analysis most directly in the orthodox Marxian

LESLIE w.

tradition is that of Harvey (1985). His geopolitics

and conflicts from the logic of uneven development,
of capital accumulation.
and

world-systems

An alternative
approach

approach

to the

s31

fiEPPLE

of capitalism derives geopolitical policies

and the search for a spatial fix to crises
is based on Wallersteins

development

expression.
This approach has been used by Taylor
basis for political geography.
For Taylor:

of capitalism
(1985)

world-economy

and

its geographical

in reconstructing

a theoretical

In world-systems analysis geopolitics is about rivalry (currently East versus West)

in the core for domination of the periphery by imperialism (currently North
versus South) (Taylor, 1985: 37).
Geopolitics

has found a place in radical geographical

the purely

economic

increasingly

hinged

on the extent

to which

economic
base: thus Skocpol (1977)
political situations
and geopolitical
phrases)

analysis

to the role of the state and the political

that Wallerstein

neglects

the political

as attention

has turned

superstructure.

is genuinely

independent

argues that it is precisely the significance

circumstance
(and Skocpol repeatedly

in his analysis

of European

(1985) argues that Marxist accounts of capitalism

the gee-political
involvements
of state actors:

capitalism.

and the state system

from

Debate

has

of the
of geouses the

Similarly

Giddens

fail to take account

of

acknowledgement of the fundamental impact of capitalism in influencing

global patterns of change from the sixt-enth century onwards should not mean
ignoring the role of the geo-political involvements of states (Giddens, 1985: 288).
One of the ironies

of this literature

is that its willingness

quite a lot to the legacy of Kissinger

This interest

to use the term geopolitics

owes

and Nixon!

by radical geographers

in geopolitics

is not confined

to Anglo-America.

In

West Germany,
the text by Hennings
and Rhode-Juchtern
(1985) also presents a worldeconomy, economic-competition
view of geopolitics as we move towards the year 2000. But
it is in France that the most sustained

geopolitical

interest

has been developed

by Lacoste and

his colleagues
on the journal Hbrodote (see also Chesnaux,
1976, for a French radical
historians
view of geopolitics).
Lacostes work deserves detailed consideration,
not least
because

it is little known

here.
Lacostes

interest

and the radicalization

in English-speaking

in geopolitics
(more

geography,

grew out of the impact

Maoist

than

Marxist)

but a brief survey

must

suffice

of the May 1968 Rising in Paris

of his geographical

outlook.

In his

militant text, la Giographie,

6 Sert, dabord, ri Faire la Guerre (Lacoste, 1976), he saw
geography as a strongly ideological form of knowledge, with major military and geopolitical
applications.

This ideology

and application

was hidden

in the formal structure

of the subject

-supposedly
academic and objective-and
the objective of radical geography
must be
critique, not only to strip away the ideological smokescreen,
but to develop alternative
revolutionary
uses for geography,
a geography to liberate not dominate people. Lacoste and
his colleagues
on Hbrodote (published
since 1976) have given much attention
to geopolitical themes, and in 1983 explicitly subtitled it Revue de Gkographie et de GQopolitique,
publishing
theme issues on a wide range of global and regional geopolitical topics (recent
themes include German geopolitics,
Near East geopolitics,
geopolitics of the sea, and the
to
geopolitics
of Islam). The (1985) revision of Lacostes text gives more prominence
geopolitics
than the first edition, and is also somewhat
less stridently
radical. Lacostes
analyses, and those of his colleagues, reject a Marxist economic reductionism
(in fact they
owe more to Foucault than to Marx), and give considerable
emphasis to cultural variations.
In common with the French geographical
tradition, there is an impatience
with general or

The revival of geopolitics

S32

abstract theory (at least as a part of geography), emphasis being given to regional studies.
Many of these studies show how detailed geographical analysis, when sensitively related to
historical and political studies, can illuminate geopolitical questions. Lacoste also gives
attention to the historical critique of geopolitics and geography, and the need to understand
the separation of the two and its effects (e.g. Lacoste, 1981).
Lacostes work is the most significant attempt to rethink the relations between geography
and geopolitics. The contrast between Hbrodote and Anglo-American
radical geography is,
however, striking. The Anglo-American
literature is long on theory and short on regional
or contextual studies, whereas the French tendency is the reverse. An integration could
produce real benefits. Within the Central American context already discussed earlier, the
studies by the geographers Foucher (1982) and Sandner (1981, 1985) show how a geographical basis can illuminate geopolitical analysis.

Opportunities

and dangers

The revival of geopolitics offers both opportunities and dangers. Geopolitics deals with
serious and important issues, and even marginally useful contributions
as well worth
making. A flourishing intellectual debate on geopolitics is an important guarantee not only
against dangerously misleading geopolitical doctrines and policies, but can also help in the
construction of more sensible and coherent strategies. However, the present geopolitical
literature is very fragmented, with little cross-referencing between the different strands, and
the term geopolitical is used in a wide variety of different, and often vague and ambiguous
ways. The global-strategy literature often seems trapped in a few traditional concepts,
ignoring wider economic and political issues that have a strong spatial structure, and
uncritical of its political assumptions. It also structures its analysis in terms of geographical
factors, often delimited rather narrowly, rather than in terms of geographical contexts.
This focus tends to lead to either one-factor explanation or a rejection of geography
altogether. The more general, popularized use of geopolitics is very vague in approach, often
totally divorced from any geopolitical or geographical tradition, and whilst the contributions
are often original and valuable, they seem to be searching for an appropriate framework
under the general heading of geopolitics.
This revival offers specific opportunities for geographers. This is not in any way to argue
that geographers should now attempt to hijack use of the term, or reclaim it for geographers exclusive use, or under their exclusive definition. Geopolitics has entered general
political language as a somewhat ambiguous but nevertheless useful term. Geographers
cannot and should not attempt to stake out proprietorial rights, or attempt to withdraw the
term from political argument into academic science. They can, however, usefully
contribute to geopolitical argument, both directly in terms of public policy debate, and by
clarifying and criticizing the analyses of others and putting forward their own alternative
analyses. If much of the geopolitical literature is searching for an appropriate theoretical
framework and geographical context, then geographers have much to contribute on both
fronts. The general background to this contribution
must be the current movement in
human geography towards the injection and integration of geographical analysis and context
into wider social and political theory. To be effective, however, this work must involve both
theoretical development and detailed regional specialization, with a sensitive threading
together of the geographical with the historical, social and political in a way that has not been
characteristic of much political geography. The basis for such a contribution must be sound
academic scholarship, but to contribute to geopolitical debate geographers will have to go
beyond this, not only in terms of orienting their work towards a wider audience, but also in

LESLIE w.

HEPPLE

s33

terms of political argument. However, changes in both human geography and the social
sciences more generally suggest that this barrier will not be such a difficulty as it has been in
the past for political geographers.
There is a danger in the new start element in the revival of geopolitics. The recent
geopolitical literature on global strategy tries to dissociate itself and the MackinderSpykman approach from the earlier Germanic tradition, whilst the wider users of geopolitics
are often ignorant of the subjects history. Innocence has its virtues, but there are risks in
this sort of historical innocence. Lack of serious historical and philosophical critique of geopolitics may not only result in reinventing the wheel, but in being caught in the trap of
accepted myth and unquestioned intellectual structures. Some contemporary geopolitics
seems content to base itself on a version of the naturalistic fallacy: an excessively direct
linking of permanent geographical factors with policy, with technology transforming
these natural relations, but with little discussion of the social and political assumptions and
models that are always involved in social constructions such as geopolitics.
Fortunately there are signs of a growing interest in the history of geopolitics. G. Parker
(1985) has provided a general survey, and Kearns (1984) and Peet (1985) have examined
the social and political contexts of particular geopolitical ideas, whilst in Germany there is a
growing historical literature on German geopolitik (of which a single but monumental
example is Jacobsen, 1979). Nevertheless, this remains a major field for future historical
research.
There is also a second danger from neglect of history: users of geopolitics always risk
having the subjects past used against them. The West may have started to forget the Second
World War, but the Russians have not, and in the Soviet Union the connection of geopolitics
with Nazism and foreign aggression is retained, and the term geopolitika is used only in a
critical context (Vigor, 1985). American discussions of the geopolitics of their foreign
policy ought to be aware of these connections and interpretations. A recent example of the
reality of this danger is given by Vitkovskiy (1981) in a criticism of a paper on the mental
maps of American policy-makers by Henrikson. Henrikson was foolhardy enough to use the
adjective geopolitical four times, but it brought onto him a full attack on imperialist
expansion, the recurrence of geopolitics and the growing threat of the United States to
peace throughout the world (Vitkovskiy, 1981). The Nazi card can also be played in
other contexts. Cavalla et al. (1977) link the geo~litical writing and national security state
of contemporary Brazil and Chile with the geopolitics of fascist Germany, arguing that the
historical connections reflect logical, structural connections. Arguments against this type of
criticism can be conducted only on the basis of detailed historical research and criticism, as
can attempts to separate Mackinderesque balance of power geopolitics from the Germanic
tradition.

Conclusions
This paper has traced the revival of geopolitics in North America and Europe since the
1970s. It has been argued that this revival has its roots in the changing international
political and economic situation, and the growing multipolarity and complexity of world
politics. However, this revival is not a unified body of knowledge or policy analysis. It is very
diverse. One strand is the revival of global geopolitical speculation, particularly as it relates
to US global strategy. A second element is the popularization of the term geopolitics and
its use in varied and vague contexts as an umbrella term for policy in a global-regional
context. The growing contribution of geographers to the geopolitical literature has been
examined, and it has been argued that geographers can potentially make valuable contribu-

s34

The revival of geopolitics

tions to both the theoretical and the contextual analysis of geopolitical problems, and that
this approach might provide the sort of framework that a lot of the geopolitical literature
seems to be searching for. If such a contribution is to be effective, however, it must be much
more historically and politically sensitive than many earlier studies. Hopefully, current
directions in geography will make this possible.
An equally important task is the historical and political critique of geopolitics. Geopolitics
must cQme to terms with its past, and examine the nature of its discourse. It is somewhat
remarkable that geopolitics has not so far attracted more attention from those interested in
social theory in human geography, for geopolitics is probably the outstanding example of a
set of concepts originating in geographical analysis that has been absorbed into social and
political practice. Having helped set the ship afloat, geography has some responsibility for
the voyage and duty towards the human crew abroad!

References
ALEXANDER,L. (1961). The new geopolitics: a critique. Journal ofCon/Zct Resolution 5, 407-410.
BLACK, G. (1982). Central America: crisis in the backyard. New Lef Review 135, 5-34.
BONASERA,F. (1982). Geopolitics. Palermo: Herbita.
BRLJNN,S. D. ANDMINGST, K. A. (1985). Geopolitics. In Progress in Political Geography (M. Pacione, ed.)
pp. 41-76. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
BULL, H. (1980). Kissinger: the primacy of geopolitics. International Affairs 56, 484-487.
BULLIER,A.-J. (1982). G&opolitiques de /Apartheid: Stratbgie ethnique de Pretoria. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
CARIBBEANREVIEW(1982). The new geopolitics. CaribbeanReview 1 l(2), Theme Issue.
CAVALLA, A., CHATEAUX, J, AND REVISTA PRINCIPIOS
(1977). La Geopolitics y el Fascismo Dependiente.
Mexico City: Casa de Chile.
CBLBRIER,P. (1955). Wopolitique et Gbostratigie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
CHALIAND,G. ANDRAGEAU,J.-P. (1983). Atlas str&gique: Gkopolitigue des Rapportsde Forcesdansle Monde.
Paris:. Fayard.
CHESNAUX,J. (1976). Du PassS Fuisons Table rue. Paris: Librairie Francois Maspero. (English edition: Pasts
and Fz&res or What is History for? London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.)
CHILD, J. C. (1985). Geopolitics and Conflict in South America. New York:. Praeger.
COHEN,S. B. (1963). Geography and Politics in a World Divided. New York: Random House (2nd ed., 1973).
COHEN,S. B. (1982). A new map of global geopolitical equilibrium: a developmental approach. Political
Geography Quarter+ 1, 223-242.
DEUDNEY,D. (1983). Whole Earth Security: a Geopolitics ojPeoce. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
DOUGHERTY,J. E. AND PFALTZGRAFF,R. L. (1981). Contending Theories ofInternational Relations. A Comprebensive Survey, 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row.
EAST, W. G. ANDMOODIE,A. E., EDS(1956). The Changing World, London: Harrap.
EAST, W. G. AND SPATE, 0. H. K., EDS (1950). The Changing Map
Asia. A Political Geography. London:
Methuen.
ENGGASS,
P. M. (1984). Geopolitics: A Bibliography of Applied Political Geography. Monticello, Ill: Vance
Bibliographies, Public Administration
Series P1438.
FOUCHER,M. (1982). Le bassin mediterraneen dAm&ique: approches geopolitiques. Hhodote 27, 16-40.
FREEDMAN,
L. (1985). Atlas ofGlobal Strategy. London: Macmillan.
GADDIS, J. L. (1982). Strategies of Containment. A Critical Appraisal Postwar American National Security
Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
GEORGE,P. (1984). Gdopolitique des Minorit& Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

of

of

GEORGE,P., GUGLIELMO,
R., KAYSER,B. ANDLACOSTE,Y. (1964). La Ggograpbie active. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
GILJDENS,
A. (1984). The Constitution ofsociety, Cambridge: Polity Press.
GIDDENS,
A. (1985). The Nation-state and Violence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
GOROSTIAGA, X. (1985). Towards alternative policies for the region. In Towards a~ Alternative for Central
America and the Caribbean (G. Irvin and X. Gorostiaga, eds) pp. 13-37. London: Allen and Unwin.
GRAHAM, J. (1970). The ego-politics of Nixon. The Spectator No. 7423 (3 October 1970), 356.

LESLIE w.

HEPPLE

s35

GRAY, C. (1977). The Geopohticsl of the Nuclear Era: Heartlands, Rimhds and the Technological Revobtion.
New York: Crane, Russak.
HARTRICH, E. (1983). The American Opportunity. New York: Methuen.
HARVEY, D. (1985). The geopolitics of capitalism. In Social Relations and SpatialStructures (D. Gregory and
J. Urry, eds) pp. 128-163.
London: Macmillan.
HENNING, W. AND RHODE-JUCHTERN,T. (1985). Geopolitik 2000. Der Poiitiscb-Geographibe A&tag Unserer
Erde. Stuttgart: J. 8. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhan~ung.
HENRMSON,A. K. (1981). The moralist as geopolitician.
The Fletcher Forum. A Journal of Studies in International Affairs 5, 391-414.
JACOBSEN,H.-A. (1979). Karl Hausbofer. Leben und Werk (2 ~01s).Boppard Am Rhein: Harald Boldt Verlag.
JAY, P. (1979). Regionalism as geopolitics. Foreign Affairs 58, 485-514.
JONES, S. B. (1955). GIobal strategic views. Geographical Review 45,492-508.
JONES,S. 8. (1959). Boundary concepts in the setting of place and time. Annals of the Association ofAmericQ~
Geographers49, 241-255.
KEARNS, G. (1984). Closed space and political practice: Frederick Jackson Turner and Halford Mackinder.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1, 23-34.
KELLY,P. L. (1986). Escalation of regional conflict: testing the shatterbelt concept. PoiiticalGeogmpby Quarter&
5,161-180.
KISSINGER,
H. (1979). The White House Years. London: Weidenfeid and Nicoison.
KLEIN, J. (1985). Reflections on geopolitics: from Pangermanism
to the doctrines of living space and moving
frontiers. In On Geopolitics: ClassicaLandNuclear(C. E. Zoppo and C. Zorgbihe, eds) pp. 45.-75. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
KRISTOF, L. K. D. (1960). The origins and evolution of geopolitics. Jonmaf ofConf7ict Resolution 4, 15-5 1.
LACOSTE,Y. (1976). ta Giograpbie, $a Sert, dhbord, d Faire la Guerre. Paris: Editions Franc& Maspero.
LACOSTE,Y. (1981). Gographicite
et geopolitique: E&s&eReclus. Hhodote 22, 14-55.
LACOSTE,Y. (1983). LAllemagne et le problkme des euromissiles. H&odote 28, 6-22.
LACOSTE,Y. (1985). Lo Giograpbie, Ca Sert, dubord, li Faire la Guerre (revised and extended edition). Paris:
Editions la Decouverte.
LEVINE,B. B. (1983). Geopalitical and cultural competition in the Caribbean-an
introduction: Cuba versus the
United States. In The New Cuban Preserzce in the Caribbean (B. B. Levine, ed.) pp. l-17. Boulder, Col:
Westview.
LITWAK, R. S. (1984). Ditente and the Nixon Doctrine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MOST, B. A. AND STARR, H. (1980). Diffusion, reinforcement,
geopolitics and the spread of war. American
Political Science Review 74,932-946.
OLOUCHLIN, J. (1986a). Spatial models of international conflict: extending current theories of war behavior.
Annals oftbe Association of American Geographers 76, 63-80.
OLOUGHLW, J. (1986b). Political geography: tilling the fallow field. Progress in Human Geography 10,69-83.
OSULLIVAN,P. (1985). The geopolitics of deterrence. In The Geography of Peace and War (II. Pepper and A.
Jenkins, eds) pp. 29--4 1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
OSULLIVAN, P. (1986). GeopoEiticx Beckenham: Croom Helm.
0 TUATHAIL, G. (I 986). The language and nature of the new geopolitics-the
case of US-El Salvador relations.
Political Geography QuarterIy 5, 73-85.
PARKER, G. (1985). Western Geopolitical Tbougbt in the Twentieth Century. London: Croom Helm.
PARKER, W. H. (1982). Mackinder: Geography as an Aid to Statecraft Oxford: Clarendon Press.
PEET, R. (1985). The social origins of environmentral
determinism. Annals of the Association of American
Geogrqpbers 75,309-333.
PEPPER, D. AND JENKINS, A. (1984). Reversing the nuclear arms race: geopolitical bases for pessimism. Professional Geographer 3G, 419-427.
POUNDS, N. J. G. (1963). Political Geography. New York: McGraw-Hill.
PRESCOTT,J. R. V. (1968). The Geography of State Pa/i&es.London: Hutchinson.
RUSSELL,J. (1983). Geopolitics of iVat~ral Gas. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger.
SANDP~XR,G. (1981). Politisch~g~graphische
raumstrukturen
und geopolitik im karibischen raum. Geographische Zeitscbrift 69, 34-54.
SANDNER,G. (1985). Zentralamerika und der Ferne Karibische Westen. Konjunkturen, Krisen und Konflikte
1X3-1984. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GMbH.
SEMJONOW,J. N. (1955). Diefascbistiscbe Geopolitik im Dienste des amerikaniscben Imperialismus.Translated
by J. Harhammer from original 1952 Russian edition. East Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
SEN, D. (1975). Basic Principles of Geopolitics and History. Delhi, India: Concept Publishing Company.
SKOCPOL,T. (1977). Wallersteins world capitalist system: a theoretical and historical critique. American Journal

S36

The revival of geopolitics

ofsociology 82, 1075-1090.

A. (1980). The Geopolitics o/lnjormation: How Western Culture Dominates the World. London: Faber.
SPROUT, H. AND SPROUT, M. (1956). Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International
Politics. Princeton, NJ: Center of International Studies.
SMITH,

TAKEUCHI,K. (1980). Geopolitics and geography in Japan reexamined. Hitotrubashi Journal o/SocialStudies 12,
14-24.
TAYLOR, P. J. (1985). Political Geography. London: Longmans.
UNITED STATESAIR FORCE(1958). Military Aspects of World Political Geography. Alabama: USAF Academy.
VIGOR,P. (1985). The Soviet view of geopolitics. In On Geopolitics: Classicaland Nuclear (C. E. Zoppo and
C. Zorgbibe, eds) pp. 131-149.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
VITKOVSKIY,
0. V. (1981). Political geography and geopolitics: a recurrence of American geopolitics (and
reply by A. K. Henrikson). Soviet Geography, Review and Translation 22, 586-597.
WALTERS, R. E. (1975). Sea Power and the Nuclear Fallacy: A Reevaluation of Global Strategy. New York:
Holmes and Meier.
WEIGERT, H. W. (1942). Generals and Geographers: The Twilight of Geopolitics. New York; Oxford University
Press.
ZOPPO, C. E. (1982).
Geopolitics, sicurezza Europea e pace mondiale nellera nucleare. Rivista Italiana di
Scienza Politica 12, 45-71.
ZOPPO, C. E. (1985). The geopolitics of nuclear deterrence. In On Geopolitics: Classicaland Nuclear (C. E.
Zoppo and C. Zorgbibe, eds) pp. 141-169.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
ZOPPO, C. E. AND ZORGBIBE,C., EDS (1985). On Geopolitics: Classicaland Nuclear. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Martinus Nijhoff.