Differences Of Alfred Mackinder's Summary Between Britain And Europe

• Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840–1914)
He drew the rivalry between Britain and France. Mahan believed that mastery of the seas was essential to global power and national defense, to compete or die. For Mahan there was a necesity of imperialism and an unrealistic idealism of international law. He argued that world dominance could be held by an Anglo-American alliance from key bases surrounding Eurasia. The northern land hemisphere, the far-flung parts of which were linked through the passageways offered by the Panama and Suez Canals, was the key to world power.

• Friedrich Ratzel (1844–1904)
He argued that different environments had shaped the culture and civilizations of distinct races. He believed that human groups that remained in isolation
He thought that geographical realities lay in the advantages of centrality of place and efficient movement of ideas, goods, and people. Mackinder was interested in the geographic dimensions of military strategy. “Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands WorldIsland: Who rules World-Island commands the world.” Mackinder (1919: 104)
He described the world as a closed system. Nothing could be altered without changing the balance of all, and rule of the world still rested upon force, notwithstanding the juridical assumptions of equality among sovereign states. Mackinder was strongly committed to cooperation among states, democratization of the empire into a commonwealth of nations, and preservation of small states. For Halford international relations were never likely to be regulated by treaty or convention but only by ‘universal law of survival through efficiency and effort.

• Isaiah Bowman (1878–1949)
Bowman did not believe that the League of Nations was, in and of itself, the framework for a new world. Rather, he saw different leagues emerging for functional purposes, each designed to advance cooperative plans that would reduce the causes of international trouble. he viewed the relations among states as an evolutionary
He argued that geopolitik must be the conscience of the state, also argued that land power might now become dominant in the world.

• Nicholas Spykman
He considered that the Eurasian coastal lands were the keys to world control because of their populations, their rich resources, and their use of interior sea-lanes. Spykman believed that only a dedicated alliance of Anglo-American sea power and Soviet land power could prevent Germany from seizing control of all the Eurasian shorelines and thereby gaining domination over World-Island.

• Alexander de Seversky,
He presented a map of the world that represented an azimuthal equidistant projection centered on the North Pole. De Seversky considered the areas where North American and Soviet air dominance overlapped to be the area of decision, this point of view of de Severesky shown that one power through all-out aerial warfare could conquer the air supremacy and the control of the northern hemispheric area of decision.

• George Kennan