AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND ANALYSIS OF MAJOR GENERAL“KARL ERNST HAUSHOFER’S GEOPOLITICS OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN Geocang AND. HISTORY. BY KARL HAUSHOFER EpITED AND UPDATED By Lewis A. TAmBs TRANSLATED BY@ERNST J. Bees m4, a iAN ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND ANALYSIS OF MAJOR GENERAL KARL ERNST HAUSHOFER'S GEOPOLITICS OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN Studies on the Relationship Between Geography and History Karl Haushofer — S Edited and Updated by Lewis A. Tambs Translated by Emst J. Brehm Mellen Studies in Geography Volume 7 The Edwin Mellen Press Lewiston*Queenston*LampeterLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Haushofer, Karl, 1869-1946. [Geopolitik des Pazifischen Ozcans, Studien dber die Wechselbezichungen zwischen Geographie und Geschichte. English] An English translation and analysis of Major General Karl Emst Haushofer's Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean : studies on the relationship between geography and history / Karl Haushofer ; edited by Lewis A. Tambs ; translated by Emst J. Brehm. p.m. — (Mellen studies in geography ; vol. 7) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-7734-7122-7 1. Pacific Area. 2. Geopolitics~Pacific Area. |. Title: Studies on the relationship between geography and history. II. Tambs, Lewis A., 1927- Ill. Brehm, Ernst J. IV. Title V. Series. DU29 H38 2002 320.1°2109909041—-de21 2002071843 [This is volume 7 in the continuing series, IMellen Studies in Geography |Volume 7 ISBN 0-7734-7122-7 MSG Series ISBN 0-7734-8048-X ACIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Copyright © 2002 Lewis A. Tambs and Emst J. Brehm The editor would like to express his appreciation to Jim Dybdahl, Roxy Martin, Rodney Ito. Pam Caner Marcia Aquirre, Omar Miguel Armijo, and Michael Tambs for their assistance in preparing this publication Alll rights reserved. For information contact ‘The Edwin Mellen Press The Edwin Mellen Press Box 67 Lewiston, New York Queenston, Ontario USA 14092-0450 CANADA LOS ILO The Edwin Mellen Press, Lid. Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales UNITED KINGDOM SA48 8LT Printed in the United States of AmericaCrad 586190 Pasea sfafogTable of Contents Prefaceby L.A. Tambs. Introduction by General Karl Hausfhofer Chapter I Is there a Geopolitics of the Pacific?... Chapter IT Spatial Picture of the Great Indo-Pacific-Ocean According to Size, Shore and Situation. .... Chapter LIT Autochthonous Indigenous Characteristic Features of the Pacific Ocean Basin. Chapter IV Historical Evolution of Humanity’s Consciousness of the Pacific Basi Chapter V Basic Beliefs of the Aborigines. Chapter VI ‘The Great Ocean as a Migratory Field: Genesis of the Island Nations and States: Archipelagos, Adventurers, Orang Malaiu and Roaming Men. Chapter VIL Pacific Sociolog; Chapter VIII The European Intrusion. Chapter IX Modification of Our Global Perceptions by the Entry of the Great Ocean into World Culture, Economics and Politics. 99 Chapter X The Northern Threshold... 113 Chapter XI The Shore of the Closed Cordillera of the Pacific Rim of Fire ww 125 Chapter XH East Asia’s Coastline: Fractured in Form, United in Climate... 139 Chapter XIN South Sea Shores and Australasi 165 Chapter XIV High Sea Highways and Rimland Routes: The Geopolitics of Channels and Straits... 21810 Chapter XV Chapter XVI Chapter XVI. Chapter XVII Chapter XIX Chapter XX Chapter XXI Chapter XXII Chapter XXIII Chapter XXIV Chapter XXV Chapter XVI Chapter XXVI_ Pacific Geopolitics from 1924 to 1936. . Bibliography (1938)... Supplementary Bibliography. Coastal Navigation and Trans-Pacific Maritime Routes....... Imperium Pacificum, the Search for Self-Determination and Darwinian Imperialism. Stimulating Penetration or Exploratory Rape?... Global Maritime Routes Move Toward the Pacific. oe Evaluation of the Indo-Pacific Area: Islands and Edges.......239 Geopolitics of Settlement and Immigration Around the Pacific Rim. Peculiar Properties of the Pacific’s Economic Geography. ..265 ‘Symptomatic Significance of the Pacific Cultural Geography and its Geopolitical Impact..... ‘The Singular Significance of the Military Geography of the Indo-Pacific. .. Political Patterns in the Pacific as a Geopolitical Pressure Gauge ... Seas, Oceans and Inlets: Small Spaces with Trans-Pacific Economic and Cultural Impact Summary (1924)... Charts and Maps Pict. 1 Pict. 2 Pict. 3 Pict.4 Table I Table II Power lines in the Great Ocean (Rise and Fall of Powers in the Pacific) Japan Times, 25 March 1922... Sketch of the Ocean Currents: July to September...... Sketch of the Winds: July to August... China’s Great Plight: The Giant Inundations...... sevsee IT ‘The Pacific Migratory Field Before the Interruption of the White Race. .. Map of the Political Space Distribution and Self-Determination in the Pacific ~ 1520...Pict. 6 Pict. 7 Pict. 8 Pict. 9 Pict. 10 Pict. 11 Pict. 12 Pict. 13 Table HI Pict. 14 Pict. 15 Pict. 16 Pict. 17 Pict. 18 Table IV Table V Pict. 19 Pict. 20 Table VI Table VII Russian Edge of the North Pacific and Its Displacement by the Island Empires. The Border Settlement Zone in the Soviet Far East with the Characteristics of a Military Border. ... The Settlement Area of Manchuria. .. Chile’s Geopolitical Structure. Chile's Structure of Communications. . The Nature of the Californian Question. Border Development of the Japanese Empire. .. Japan's Penetration in Asia as of the Washington Conference of 1922............. ‘China's Loss of Sea Coast....... Modification of the Range of Power of the Chinese Central Government, 1915-1931. ... oe ISS/S6 System of the Lines of Power in the Austral-Asiatic Mediterranean... The Distribution of the Actual Political Power in the Austral-Asiatic Mediterranean. ... Distribution of Possessions in the Austral-Asiatic Mediterranean... Population Density of Java and Madoera (Madura). Unorganized Land Bridges. Northem Central America and Guatemala’s Borders. .... Navigation Routes Across the Pacific. Pacific Radio Stations. .. An Example of Organized Land Bridges: Malayan oo LB Peninsula. ... French-Indo-China and the Franco-British Tight-Lacing of Siam (Thailand). Airline and Railroad Routes... ‘The East-Asian-Australian Aviation Net. ...Iv Pict. 21 Pict. 22 Pict. 23 Pict. 24/25 Pict. 26 Table VOI Pict. 27 Table IX Pict. 28 Pict. 29 Pict. 30 Pict. 31 Pict. 32 Pict. 33 ‘The Disputed Islands, Claimed by France, China and Japan in the South China Sea. ‘Sketch of the Demographic Pressure Distribution in East ASIA... eee ceeecceceee The Desirable Settlement Grounds of Australia. The Distribution of Autarky and Mono-culture in the Pacific Region as of 1928. China's Economic Province: Military Map of the Pacifi Geopolitical Diagram of the Juan de Fuca Boundary ... Military-Geopolitical Sketch of the Pacific Prior to the Washington Conference of 1922. The Worldwide Maneuver Area of the Pacific Naval and Air Forces as of 1935. ‘The Geographical Pivot of History According to Sir Halford Mckinder, 1903. .. 328 The Migration of the Chinese Capital City: Former and Present Capital. New Zealand's Protective Leaning to the South Pole 340 Protection The Great Antithesis of East and West from 1914 to 1918. ...349 ‘The Great East-West Antitheses of the Future.Preface. L.A. Tambs Karl Emst Haushofer was born in Munich on August 27,1869. Bred in geopolitics by his father, Max (1840-1907), who taught economic geography at Munich’s Polytechnicum, and a close friend and confidant of Friedrich Ratzel (1846-1904), a colleague as well as a professor at the University of Leipzig. Ratzel, in his Anthropographie and Politische Geographie (1891 and 1897), sought to analyze the influence of location, situation, space, seas, rivers, mountains, plains, weather and climate and other physical phenomena on human kind, and from findings develop organic laws of behavior for sovereign states. These concepts were discussed, debated and dissected by Ratzel and Max Haushofer while the young Karl tagged along on walks, outings and social and academic affairs. Thus, Karl was immersed from an early age in geopolitics. A discipline which was further enhanced by the Swede Rudolf Kjellen (1864- 1922)! Young Karl entered the Bavarian Army in 1887, which, along with the diplomatic, postal, telegraph and railway service had remained autonomous after incorporation of the Kingdom of Bavaria into the German Empire in 1871. After graduating from the Cadet School and War Academy he was commissioned and joined his field artillery regiment, Three years after marrying Martha in 1896 he was promoted to a general staff officer and in 1903 designated docent at the Bavarian Cadet School and War Academy. Meanwhile, his Jewish spouse, Martha, gave birth to Albrecht (1903), then Heinz (1906), and Sir Halford J. Mackinder (1861-1947) published his seminal study “The Geographical Pivot of History” in 1904 which revolutionized geopolitics with the Heartland thesis.VI MacKinder theorized that the inner reaches of Eur-Asia which were immune from maritime attack by the Royal Navy would, if populated, developed and industrialized, launch fleets which would not only challenge, but defeat the Sea Peoples of Western Europe, Africa, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. Hence, the area of Eur-Asia from eastem Europe to the upper reaches of the Amur and Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Artic Ocean where the Land Peoples lived would someday rule the world. Czars in Saint Petersburg, commissars in Moscow and Communists in Beijing would embrace this thesis with alacrity. The initial area of conflict between the Land Peoples and the Sea Peoples would be the Rimlands ~ the immense arc of sea and shore running from the Baltic, thru Eastern Europe, the Middle East, India and on to the South China and Sea of Japan. Though adopted by George Keenan in his Containment thesis and temporally voided by air and missile power and the Polar Strategy, MAD (Mass Assured Destruction), nuclear parity and proliferation would reinstate MacKinder’s strategic vision. Concurrent with MacKinder's concept of the Eur- Asian Heartland, Teddy Roosevelt (1858-1919) spoke of the declining resources of the Atlantic area and predicted the dawn of the Pacific age while Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) wrote of the Asian challenge and the diminutive American military advisor to Imperial China, Homer Lea (1876-1912), wamed of impending Japanese aggression.’ In 1908 Captain Haushofer was suddenly posted to Japan with the Bavarian Military Mission, Boarding the Goeben in Genoa on October the twenty second, Karl and Martha steamed eastward thru the Mediterranean, Suez Canal, past Aden and the Hom of Africa to Ceylon, Singapore and into the South China Sea. Overpowering signs of England's imperial sea power engulfed them. They had, in fact, traversed six of the globe's fourteen maritime choke points - the others being the Mozambique Channel, Cape of Good Hope, Straits of Gibraltar, North Sea, Norwegian Sea, Cape Horn, Caribbean and the, then under construction, Isthmian Canal in Panama, thra which the majority of the world’s sea bome commerce passes. Of future import was his dinner during a stopover in India with the British commander in chief of the East Indies, Baron Horatio Herbert Kitchener ofvol Khartoum (1850-1916), who lamented the impending war between England and Germany, because it would rain Europe's position in the Pacific forever. America and Japan would be the only ones to profit, he predicted.’ Two years in the Orient enabled Haushofer, not only to tour Burma, Japan, China, Korea, Manchuria and Siberia — which he traversed on the Trans-Siberian Railway on his retum trip in mid 1910 — but also to appreciate and admire Japanese culture and understand Nippon’s imperial impulse for demographic driven Lebensraum. _ Japan, an agricultural land, was at the mercy of the elements. Moreover, the population of the home islands had risen from 18 to 30 millions, despite repeated famines during the Tokugawa Period (1542-1868). The 1872 census counted 33 million and that of 1898 some 43.5 million. By the time Haushofer landed in the Island Empire the Nipponese numbered 48.7 million — an annual average increase of 1.18%. Hence, resettlement on the East Asian mainland or immigration around the Pacific rim, were the order of the day. By 1902 some 100,000 Japanese had settled in Korea, 44,000 in Manchuria, 130,000 in the continental U.S. and another 64,000 in Hawaii. Immigration to the U.S. was, however, restricted by the “Gentlemen's Agreement” of 1908 and impelled by the Magdalena Bay affair of 1912, later closed by the Oriental Exclusion Act. Resentful, but not yet ready to openly challenge the U.S., Japan continued its industrial and military buildup, retaining tradition while adopting Westem science and technology. Hence, Nippon managed to modernize but conserve its culture.‘ Japanese occupation of China's Pescadores and Formosa (Taiwan) in 1895 and participation in the international relief force to Peking during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 marked Japan not as a victim but as a victor. Recognition came the next year with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance which was directed against the United States - now an East Asian power with the acquisition of Hawaii, Wake, Guam; Samoa and the Philippines in 1898-99; Germany, which had acquired a 99 year lease on Kiao-Chow (Tsingtao) and purchased Spain's Pacific Island possessions; and Russia which had stretched across Siberia to the Pacific by 1639 and had outflanked the Royal Navy by building the Trans-Siberian Railwayvor bringing the Baltic to the Sea of Japan. The Czar, seeking warm water, had moved into Manchuria, Port Arthur (Lushan) and Korea. The Russia-Japanese War of 1904-1905 followed. Victorious Japan acquired the southem half of Sakhalin, Port Arthur, a protectorate over Korea and a ten year renewal of the English Alliance. Assured of control of the East China and Yellow Seas with the exception of German Tsingtao, a dynamic, expansive Japan welcomed Haushofer in 1908, Haushofer, a keen observer and gifted linguist, sensed similarities between Japan and Germany, which would induce him to urge immediate understanding between the two peoples, But it was not to be. Retuming to Bavaria in 1910, Major Haushofer quickly penned and published four works relating to his East Asian experiences - Geographische Grundlagen der japanischen Wehrkraft (1910); Dai Nihon (1913); Der deutscher Anteil an der.geographischen Erschliessung Japans (1914); and Die politischen Parteien in Japan (1914) ‘These academic efforts coincided with completion of his doctoral dissertation on Japan in 1913 which won him academic honors at the University of Munich; but first, the Fatherland!* Haushofer marched to the Westem Front when war erupted in August 1914, Japan stormed Tsingtao, overran the German Islands in the Pacific, replaced German merchants in eastern Asia, and in 1915 submitted Twenty one. Demands to the newly founded Republic of China, thereby initiating a policy which established Japanese preponderance in the Far East for the next thirty years. Germany, evicted from the Indo-Pacific arena, was no longer a challenger to Nippon. An era of cooperation, as advocated by Haushofer, beckoned. Undefeated after four years of fierce fighting, Major General Karl Haushofer led his tired troops back to Bavaria in November 1918. King Ludwig abdicated. The Kaiser fled. Bolshevism bloomed. Four multi-national empires - Austro-Hungarian, German, Otoman and Russian — disintegrated. Clashes between Communists and conservatives convulsed Munich. Demobilized, Haushofer, embittered by the victorious Allies failure to follow the Fourteen Points of President Woodrow Wilson in the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 tumed, as.Xx the situation stabilized, to his scholarly career teaching geography and military history as an adjunct at the University of Munich until attaining a professorship in 921. One of his students, Rudolf Hess, would introduce him to Adolf Hitler at Munich's Landsberg prison after the abortive putsch in 1923. Geopolitics, meanwhile, had attained a certain recognition. Ratzel's American disciple Ellen Churchill Semple (1863-1932) by her writings and lectures on the new concepts in geography at the University of Chicago and Clark University, along with the Englishman James Fairgrieve’s (1870-1953), Geography and World Power (1915) — a work greatly admired by Haushofer whose wife, Martha, would translate it into German and publish it in 1925 - Mackinder’s updating of his Heartland thesis in Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919) and the Argentine naval officer, Frigate Captain Segundo R. Stomi, in his Intereses Argentinos en el Mar (1916), and Mar Territorial (1924), would give the discipline dignity and draw attention to the Pacific. Haushofers immediate post-World War I years were marked by political activity and renewed research and publication on Japan and the Pacific - Das Japanische Reich in seiner geographischen Entwicklung (1921); Japan und die Japaner, eie Landeskunde (1923); Der Wiederaufstieg Sud-Ostasiens zur Selbstbestimmung (1923); and articles in his Zeitschrift flir Geopolitik (1924-1944) - which culminated in his major work - Geopolitik des Pazifischen Ozeans (1924). Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean, subtitled Studies on the Relationship Between Geography and History, would consist, after the 1936 and 1938 editions of an introduction, twenty seven’ chapters, two appendices, forty-two maps and tables and number 339 pages. The work, which covers both the Pacific and Indian Oceans, opens with “Is there a Geopolitics of the Pacific?” continues with, “Spatial Picture of the Great Indo-Pacific Ocean according to Size, Shore and Situation,” and Goes on to treat such diverse topics as “Historical Evolution of Humanities Consciousness of the Pacific Basin,” “Basic Beliefs of the Aborigines, “Pacific Sociology’, to close with “Pacific Geopolitics from 1924 to 1936."An analysis and summary of the foregoing chapters reveals certain consistent themes; the center of global power has moved from the Mediterranean to the AUlantic and on toward the Pacific where over seventy percent of the globe's population resides and where over seventy percent of the earth's natural resources remain. Japan and Germany should cooperate since they no longer have any antagonisms or reasons for confrontation. Germany, Russia, China, India and Japan, should ally themselves against the colonial maritime powers - England, France and the United States. This Eur-Asian alliance should run from the Rhine River to the Amur and the Yangtze. “Asia for the Asians,” naturally allied with Germany, should be the motto. China was reawakening. Hence, Japan should not seek to conquer China, since it would be eventually overwhelmed. “Since the geopolitical future belongs to the Russian-Chinese bloc,” Japan must reconcile her aims with Russia. “Japan and Russia, if united are invincible in East Asia ... A Mongolia led by Russia, a South Manchuria led by Japan and between them a buffer region.”” Moreover, Vladivostok could launch aircraft over the entire area of the Japanese archipelago. Japan should conquer South East Asia, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), Australia and New Zealand and promote immigration to the Americas. Immigration from East Asia, especially China, will increase around the entire Pacific Rim. The Pacific coast of the U.S. and Canada would be particularly effected. Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean had an immediate impact. Quickly translated and published in Japan and Russia it became a subject of study in Tokio and Moscow. A Russo-Japanese Convention was signed in 1925. For Japan was chagrined by its post-war failure to gain international recognition of its special position in the Far East. Though Nippon had received a League of Nations mandate for all of the former German islands north of the Equator - the Carolines, Marshalls and Marianas — the League's refusal to accede to a Japanese demand for a statement as to racial equality, the naval limitations of the Washington Conference of 1922 and London's decision mot to renew the Anglo-Japanese Alliance were considered humiliating,xI ‘Then came the Tanaka Memorandum of 1927. Reportedly based on Haushofer's Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean it provoked a split between the Imperial Army and Navy; one favored expansion on the Chinese mainland, the other in South East Asia and the Pacific. Opportunity for the army came with civil war in China between Communists and Nationalists - eventually lead by Mao Tse-tung and Chiang K’ai-shek. The Mukden Incident of 1931, the ‘subsequent Japanese occupation of Manchuria, its declaration of independence as a client state, the seizure of political power by the military, the 1937 invasion of China, and — in spite of state sponsored immigration to South America, especially Brazil and Peru — population passing 69,200,000 the same year, marked the Japanese as a people in search of Lebensraum. Haushofer decried the Japanese decision to commit itself to the conquest of China, but was elated by the German- Japanese Anti-Cominter Pact and Italy's adhesion. At least part of his grand design of German and Japanese cooperation was coming to completion. Hitler had come to power in Germany in 1933. Espousing many of Haushofer's geopolitical theories, except alliance with Communist Russia, the Nazis pushed Haushofer into prominence. Though, retaining his post at the University of Munich until his seventieth birthday in 1939, he served as President of both the German Academy (Deutsche Akademie, (1934-1937) and the People’s League for Germanism Abroad (Volksbund fur das Deutschtum im Ausland (1938-1941), Haushofer, a nationalist, but not a National Socialist, had already been coldly rebuffed by Hitler in 1938 when the professor tried to caution the Fuehrer that his policies would lead to war. Meanwhile, his son Albrecht, following in his father's footsteps, traveled, published and taught geopolitics at Berlin’s Hochschule fur Politik. Albrecht, active in diplomatic and political circles, was appointed Professor of Geography at the University of Berlin in 1940. By then, Karl Haushofer had achieved his greatest triumph, the German-Russian Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939. “Never again shall Germany and. Russia endanger, by ideological conflicts, the geopolitical foundations of their adjustable spaces,” he proclaimed.”The Hitler-Stalin Pact, which delivered Finland, the Baltic Republics and over one half of Poland into Soviet hands, enabled the Nazis to concentrate on defeating France and England. It did, however, stun Japan. Renouncing the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, Japan occupied Vichy-held French Indo- China and negotiated a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union. A treaty which Tokio respected even after the German invasion of the USSR on June 22, 1941. Disheartened and dismayed by Hitler's attack on Russia as well as reports of the Final Solution, Haushofer withdrew with his non-Aryan wife, Martha, to their mountain retreat, Ammersee, in the hills of Southern Bavaria, From the pine covered hills he watched Hitler falter before Moscow, while the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, overran the Philippines, stormed the great British naval base at Singapore, invaded the Dutch East Indies and South East Asia and threatened New Zealand, Australia and British India; at last the grand design of the Indo- Pacific Oceans unfolded. Puppet regimes in Nanking, Manila, Jakarta, Hanoi, Singapore, Bangkok, and Rangoon hailed the: Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. But, it was not to be. The Allies counterattacked. His son, Albrecht, a participant in the July 20, 1944, plot against Hitler, was captured and executed by the Gestapo. The U.S. Army arrived. Japan collapsed as Russia on August 8 1945, two days after the atomic attack on Hiroshima, invaded Manchuria and Korea, while Haushofer was hauled before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. An interrogation team headed by Rev. Edmund A. Walsh, S.J. of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, armed with documentation grilled the stricken seventy-six year old Haushofer. Driven by despair, Karl and his faithful spouse of nearly fifty years, Martha, committed joint suicide on March 10, 1946. Their surviving son, Heinz, found his parent's bodies the next moming. Never-the-less, by 1949 Haushofer's vision of a Eur-Asian empire had emerged. But, it ran from the Elbe, not the Rhine, to the Amur and Yangtze, and was under Communist control. Egypt, Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, Ceylon, Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines had won independence from the maritime powers. Marxist inspired and supplied insurgency mauled Malaysia, Indo-China and Mindanao. As Lord Kitchener had foretold forty years before WestemXI Europe's position in the Pacific was ruined forever. Under populated Australia and New Zealand still stood, but shielded, not by mother England, but the U.S. For American naval and air bases spanned the Pacific from San Francisco thru Hawaii, the former German and Japanese Carolines, Marshalls, Marianas and on to Samoa, the Philippines, and Okinawa. The U.S., not Nippon, dominated the Pacific Basin. For Japan was not only devastated and deprived of all overseas possessions including Taiwan, the Kuriles and Sakhalin, but was burdened by millions of repatriated POW’s and returning refugees. But, the real winner was Russia. China had capitulated to the Communists. Fruitless U.S. efforts to force the Nationalists to compromise and form a coalition with the Soviet-supported Communists had undermined Chiang Kai- shek. Meanwhile, Mao Tse-tung, as his successors would in the 1990’s in the Americas (Panama, Venezuela, Colombia, Bahamas and U.S.), use the tactics of his Yenan Way — supporting ambitious and corrupt politicians and military officers, bribing bureaucrats, exalting artisis and intellectuals, and promising profits to private entrepreneurs and multinational corporations, until the Party’s power was assured; then they would be deposed, dismissed and dispossessed — caused the Kuomintang to collapse and flee to Formosa. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) was proclaimed on October 1, 1949. A Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union soon followed. This Eur- Asian alliance would last just over a decade. But in the meantime, the PRC and the USSR, apparently encouraged by Secretary of State Dean Acheson's declaration early in 1950 that South Korea was outside the U.S. defense perimeter, supported an invasion by North Korea in June. The U.S., under UN auspices, came to the aid of South Korea, The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) joined their Communist comrades in October and remained in the line until the armistice of 1953. Joseph Stalin passed away. But the Cold War raged on. The Latin Americans, caught up in the conflict between East and West, with their countries convulsed by Communist subversion, could not, with few exceptions like the Chilean, General Ramén Cajias Montalva, concentrate on their Pacific frontier. The rebirth of Japan, however, which was stimulated by theXIV Korean Wer and began rebuilding, changed this. Exports of oil, ore and agricultural products to renascent Nippon, along with investments and industrial development from South Korea and Japan re-focused Latin America Pacificward. Eventually, Japan, acting economically, not militarily, succeeded, under the cover of American might, in reestablishing the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Only the PRC stood outside. The Sino-Soviet split came in 1960. Russian reluctance to transfer technology, especially nuclear, along with refusal to back an attack on Taiwan and PRC publications calling for a return of territories occupied by the USSR, added to Chairman Mao's aspirations to be recognized as Stalin's ideological heir, contributed to the break. Additional tension came in 1962 with the PLA’s move over the McMahon Line into India's Northwest Frontier and Peking’s ethnic cleansing of Tibet and Xinjiang.'° Moscow moved to encircle the PRC. Approaches to Japan and Nationalist China having failed the USSR found ready allies in India and North Viet-Nam which received vast quantities of war material. Rallying to South Viet Nam's side the U.S., pursuing a policy of strategic defense and tactical offense, was defeated. Saigon fell in 1975. Russia won a twenty five year lease on the prize port of Cam Ranh the best harbor on the South China Sea. No longer did Admiral Sergei Gorshkov have to worry about the Pacific squadron being ice-bound in Vladivostok. President Richard Nixon, his path prepared by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, meanwhile, had made his move, Early in 1972 he called on Chairman Mao in Beijing. The joint communiqué of February twenty eight calling for improved relations rattled Russian Communist Party Secretary Leonid 1. Brezhnev who like Napoleon Bonaparte before him questioned the wisdom of awakening the sleeping Chinese giant. President Jimmy Carter, having deeded the Isthmian Canal in Panama to caudillo Omar Torrijos in 1977 and supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua — site of the alternate Isthmian canal route — established full diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1979. Russia retaliated by invading Afghanistan, further sealing the encirclement of the PRC - Soviet Siberia, Afghanistan, India, and Viet Nam ~ while simultaneously endangering MiddleXV Eastern oil supplies, Southern African strategic mineral sources and Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) by Islamic and African initiatives in Iraq, Aden, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mozambique and Angola. U.S. supremacy in the Indo-Pacific hemisphere was in shambles. But by 1981 a new regime ruled in Washington. Launching a strategic offensive, President Ronald Reagan annulled the Brezhnev Doctrine in Grenada, deployed cruise missiles in Europe, threatened to develop the Strategic Defense Initiative, covertly cooperated with the Vatican by supporting Solidarity in Poland, and aided indigenous insurgents against Marxist-Leninist military governments in Nicaragua, Angola, Ethiopia and Afghanistan, while winning a tactical and technological triumph by arming Israel against Soviet supported Syria for the 1982 conflict in Lebanon. Confronted by a resolute Reagan, Communist Russia — debilitated by demographic decline, technological inferiority, industrial decay and environmental degradation - imploded in 1989 and disintegrated two years later. The third civil war of the Twentieth Century - World War I (1914- 1918), World War II (1939-1945) and the Cold War (1917/1946-1989), which had savaged Western Civilization - ended. U.S. superiority over the rim of the Pacific Oceans was cemented the same year of 1991 by victory in the Gulf War. But, Eur-Asia was on the move. A German dominated European Economic Community (EEC) was emerging. Russia, though shattered and suffering, had supposedly come to an understanding with Germany as early as 1990, which enabled Boris Yeltsin and his Chief of Foreign Intelligence (1991-1996), Foreign Minister (1996-1998) and Prime Minister (1998-1999), Yevgeni M. Primakov to turn to traditional tactics in Enr-Asia. As an Arabist, Primakov sought allies in the petroleum producing Muslim Middle East, augmented the alliance with India, and sought to strengthen ties with China. All of these efforts came together in New Delhi in December, 1998, when Primakov, emulating Haushofer, proposed a Russian-Indian-Chinese axis. Primakov's push for multi-polarity - EEC, Islam, Russia, India and China - was directed at the U.S. Vladimir Putin, Primakov's successor after his ouster as Yeltsin’s Prime Minister early in 1999 and Yeltsin's candidate for the presidency,XVI further followed this Eur-Asian continental confederation concept - MacKinder’s nightmare of the Land Peoples of the Heartland and Rimlands allied against the Sea Peoples - which was soundly solidified by President Yeltsin while visiting President Jian Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji in Beijing early in December 1999, further fortified by President Putin after his election in 2000 and sealed on July 16, 2001, when Putin and Zemin signed a Friendship Pact in Moscow. Russia and China viewed the U.S. initiated NATO attack on Yugoslavia, not only as unprovoked armed intervention, but also as an effort to expand Western oil interest’s influence eastward into the petroleum laden Caspian Sea region where the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldava present possible petroleum pipeline export corridors to Europe and the U.S. These five republics, collectively called GUAAM, signed an agreement in Washington in April 1999 calling for cooperation. GUAAM, as was the previous protocol of December 9, 1998, which was presided over by U.S. Vice President Al Gore and Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and capped off by the final agreement endorsed by President Clinton in Turkey in November 1999 to construct a pipeline from the Caspian through Turkey to the Mediterranean, are moves obviously directed against Russia and possibly petroleum poor China.'? Hence, Russia, which has served as a shield of the Serbs for centuries and regarded it as a rampart against Islamic expansion, protested NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia, the Russian Army occupied parts of Kosovo prior to arrival of Albanian based NATO peace keepers, challenging President Yeltsin and the PRC. Concurrently, Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian deplored the U.S. spearheaded attack; “Since the U.S. is exploiting their strike against Iraq in the Mideast War and their military aggression against the Federal Republic of ‘Yugoslavia to show off their new weaponry, we are waiting for them to militarily invade and meddle with us to counterattack, to show off the new weapons China has developed.”"? ‘And China has new weapons. U.S. investors, industrialists and espionage have transferred technology to China at an unprecedented pace; all with official encouragement and approval. The U.S. Department of Defense trained elite PLAXVII units from 1993 until prohibited to do so by Congress in 1999; the term “strategic partnership” used during President Jiang Zemin’s visit to Washington in late 1997, and President William Jefferson Clinton's acceptance during his visit to Beijing in mid 1998 of the PRC’s “Three No's Policy - no U.S. support for Taiwan; no “Two China” policies; no Nationalist Chinese membership in intemational organizations; sanctioned the private sector’s build up of China’s military- industrial complex. Curiously, this came at a time when the PRC was — after bringing Burma (Myanmar) into satellite status, building a naval base at Sittwe on the Bay of Bengal, acquiring port facilities at Aden, deploying security forces in the Sudan to protect petroleum interests, pushing its claims to the South China Sea, scouting the oil rich Spratly Islands while a Red Chinese naval squadron, in a unprecedented maneuver, was cruising off the Pacific coast of the Americas and the China Ocean and Shipping Company (COSCO), owned by the Chinese Government, was negotiating to take over the former U.S. Naval Station at Pier 400 in Long Beach, California until Congress intervened. They did, however, later acquire Pier 9. China is challenging U.S. power, not only in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, but also in the Caribbean. In 1997 Panama Ports, a company affiliated with Hutchinson-Whampoa, an entity associated with the government of mainland China, acquired contro! of four ports in Panama, two of which are at the Caribbean and Pacific entrances to the Isthmian Canal as well as administration of the canal itself. Subsequently, the PRC contracted control of port facilities in the Bahamas and constructed a container facility at Freeport. Nassau, then dropped Taipei, and recognized Beijing as the legitimate government of China. Meanwhile, stories of PRC support for politicians in Colombia and Venezuela surfaced. Subsequently, President Andrés Pastrana of Colombia demilitarized vast areas, effectively granting control to Marxist and Maoist narco-guerrillas, while Castroite President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela declared his desire to re-establish Sim6n Bolfvar's Gran Colombia - Venezuela, Colombia, Panama and Ecuador - probably as a People’s Republic, aided in mid 2001 with $1,000,000 in PRC military equipment. These events, along with formal delivery of theXVI Isthmian Canal to the Panamanian Government by former President Carter in December 1999, PRC cooperation with Fidel Castro’s Cuba, PRC President Jiang Zemin’s second visit to Latin America in April 2001 with featured stopovers in Havana and Caracas, along with covert contributions to ambitious politicians and (Chavez's second call on the PRC “for strategic discussions” along with a stopover in Moscow in mid 2001, and Mexican President Vicente Fox’s pilgrimage to Peking, endanger the southem flank of the U.S. and portend the pushing of a PRC salient across Middle America, Terra Firma and the Caribbean, thereby splitting the Americas in twain. Additional danger arose in mid-2001 in Mexico where Fox's inability to fulfill his promises to the impoverished Mexican people and his failure to quell insurgency in Chiapas, further complicated by the events in New York City and ‘Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, which forced the U.S. to seal its southem borders against masses of Mexicans fleeing from hunger, forecast unrest and revolution abetted by Fide] Castro and the PRC, thus forcing the U.S. to face southward and away from the Western Pacific where Presidents Putin announced Russian withdrawal from Cam Rahm Bay in October 2001, two years ahead of schedule ~ a Chinese triumph! A triumph resonated even further with PRC admission to the World Trade Organization and the hosting of the Asian-Pacific Summit in Shanghai in mid-October 2001, which featured Presidents George Bush and Jiang Zemin wearing Chinese traditional attire. Latin America, with its extensive stretch of the Easter shore of the Pacific Basin, is caught in the clash of titans for contol of the Indo-Pacific Oceans. But will Latin America be a player or an observer? Time was when the Hispanic peoples ruled the seas from the Americas to Africa. Portugal controlled the Mozambique Channel, Aden, Oman (Hormuz), Ceylon, Malacca, Timor and Macao; Spain, the Pacific coast of the Americas from Cape Hom to Nootka Sound and westward to the Carolines, Marianas and on to Manila. The Indo- Pacific Oceans were, as Haushofer acknowledged, a Luso-Hispanic lake. ‘The question now is; will Latin America, while the U.S. distracted by Islamic terrorist attacks, fumbles, and Europe ~ faced with massive MuslimXIX migration from Albania and Africa, is led by Germany into a Rhine to Amur and Yangtze alliance with Russia, China and India - fades, take the lead in establishing a New Inter-Oceanic Alliance (NIOA) as proposed by Brazilian General Carlos de Meira Mattos? This coalition of Canada, the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia and Japan could confront MacKinder's nightmare of a combination comprising the Eur-Asian Heartland and Rimlands - a modern Mongol Empire - and save the Pacific. But, Japan is the key, as is Brazil. However, with the formal passing of the Isthmian Canal to Panama in mid-December, 1999, reports of Chinese and Russian designs on Howard Air Force Base early in 2000, and of PRC supported illegal immigration to Panama - Japan and Brazil, as they did in the early 1980’s when, fearful of Panamanian possession of their oil and ore route, opened negotiations with the Sandinistas to construct a passage thru Nicaragua, may come to an agreement with the PRC. If Nippon, as Haushofer recommended, and possibly Brazil, combine with Russia, China and India, the United States, with its southern flank shattered, is lost. If Japan joins with NAFTA, Mercosul, New Zealand and Australia, in a New Inter- Oceanic Alliance the Indo-Pacific realm can - assuming the Sino-Soviet salient stretching across the shores and seas of the Caribbean is slashed - be saved from Eur-Asian domination. Whither America? The aging Atlantic? Or Haushofer's ‘ocean of the future - the Pacific? Hence, decades after his death, Karl Haushofer's analysis of the Indo- Pacific realm still impacts the global balance and, whether we accept the vision of Primakov — Putin — Jiang - Zhu, or Meira Mattos or the New World Order, Kar! Haushofer and his Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean forecasts the future. Reference Notes 1. Andreas Dorpalen, The World of General Haushofer, (New York: Ferrar & Rinchart, 1942), pp. 49-56; and Derwin Whittlesey, “Haushofer: The Gcopoliticians.” in Makers of Modem Strategy Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler, Edward Mead Merle, ed.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U-P., 1944), pp. 388-414; and Y.M. Goblet, Political Geography and the World Map (New York: Praeger, 1955), pp-8-15). Dorpalen, World, pp. 3-20; Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Kar! Haushofer: Leben und Werk (Boppard am Rhein: Harald Boldt, 1979), I, 3-53; Homer Lea, The Valor of Ignorance (N.Y. & London: Harper, 1909), pp 149-209; Hans W. Weigert, “Haushofer and the Pacific,” Foreign Affairs, 20:4 (July 1942), p. 735; Edmund A. Walsh, SJ., Total Power (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1948), pp. 5-8. Ibid., Jacobsen, Haushofer, 1, 86-90. Conrad Schirokauer, Modern China and Japan (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, 1981) p. 39. Jacobsen, Haushofer, 1, 91,480. Ibid., I, 13-157: Walsh, Total Power, p. 6; Jean Klein, “Reflections on Geopolitics: From Pan Germanism to the Doctrines of Living Space and Moving Frontiers,” in On Geopolitics: Classical and Nuclear, Ciro Zoppo and Charles Zorgbibie, eds. (Boston: Martinus Nijoff, 1985), pp. 45-77. Karl Haushofer, Geopolitik des Pazifischen Ozeans (Heidelberg- Berlin; Kurt Vowinckel, 1938), pp. 142-3. Russel Fifield & G.Etzel Pearcy, Geopolitics in Principle and Practice @oston: Ginn, 1944), pp. 14-22, 94-126; Walsh, Total Power, pp. 7-9: Hans W. Weigert, “Asia Through Haushofer’s Glasses,” in Compass of the World, Hans W. Weigert; V. Stefansson eds. (N.Y.: Macmillan, 1944), pp. 395-407 and see Donald Norton, “Karl Haushofer and His Influence on Nazi Ideology and Foreign Policy,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Clark University, Worcester, MA. Haushofer, Zeitschrift fur Geopolitik, 17:1 (1939), 44-55 and Yung Wan Jo, “Japanese Geopolitics and the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere,” (American University, 1964, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan), pp. 14-32.i 12. XX! Walsh, Total Power, pp. 11-33; Jacobsen, Haushofer, I, 445-447, II, 579-580; Eudocio Ravines, The Yenan Way (N.Y.: Schribner’s, 1951), pp. 113-16. Ramon Cajias Montalva, “Reflexioes Geopoliticos sobre el Presente y Futuro de America,” Revista Geografica de Chile, 1 (Sept. 1948), pp. 27-40; Schirokauer, Modem pp. 299-301. Lewis A. Tambs, “Moscu, Mongoles y Musulmanes,” Geopolitica (Buenos Aires), 66: XXIV, pp. 22-28. Steve Leisman, “Three Oi] Giants and Kazakstan Will Push Plan for Caspian Sea Pipelines to Turkey,” WSJ, (December 10, 1998), A 4; Jude Wanniski, “Economic Motives for U.S. Attack,” Ottawa, June 8, 1999, hitp/.iraqwar.org; “Beijing's War Theory,” International Reports: Early Warning (Washington, D.C.), 17:9 (June 4, 1999), p. 3; “Turmoil in the Andes.” Ibid., p.9. Letter to the author from General Carlos de Meira Mattos, 28 August 1988, Lewis A. Tambs “Demography, Geopolitics and the Decline of the West Policy Council" (Spring 1997), pp 63-74; open Tom Delay Amendment, Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 140e June 9, 1999; Harvey Sicherman,” The Inscrutable Americans: Zhu Rongji, and the Deal that Wasn't” Foreign Policy Research Institute - E-Notes (April 23, 1999), p. 1; Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN (Ret.), Testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, June 16, 1998; Lt. Gen. Gordon Sumner, Jr., USA (Ret.), Testimony before the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. U.S. House of Representatives, May 4, 1999; “Caution on China,” Tribune (Mesa, AZ), June 8, 1999, A10; Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN (ret), Testimony on the Panama Canal before the Senate Armed Forces Committee, October 22, 1999, and for another vision see Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot declares ‘in the next century, America will not exist in its present form, all states will recognize a single global authority,’ DrudgeReport, September 26, 1999; and see Sandy Berger (NSC) on “Engagement policy of Clinton administration,” October 30, 1999; Eduardo Diss da Costa Villas Boas, “Relagdes, Brasil-Chins: Perspectivas para o Século XXI,” Revista da Escola Superior de Guerra (Rio de Janeiro), XVII, No 40, 2001, pp. 221-259.Introduction: Geopolitics has a theme and an objective. The theme is to form a scientific basis for the art of political action in the struggle for life, which seeks to establish a living space on earth for itself. The objective is to recognize the fundamental features determined by the surface of the earth, which are the only lasting ones in this struggle and to advance from empirical observation to one governed by scientific law. The starting point upon which geopolitics is based is the political, cultural, and economic geography, which relies on the inorganic and bio-geographical substructure as provided by physical geography. However, the objective of geopolitics is just as much an art as it is a science: it is a craft. And it is sad indeed for the future of mankind - which, after all, confronts constant change in the perpetual struggle for the conquest, retention, reshuffling and redistribution of the living space and the power given it - how little even an elementary understanding of the craft, which is indispensable for survival in this struggle exists and yet, knowledge of this craft could be acquired by anyone. Knowledge of the entire earth is impossible. That would exceed the mental capacity of any individual as is the ability to perpetually master a daily growing and changing subject matter. But it is possible to do this for one earth space: one's own. This is a necessary prerequisite for the exercise of the duties of citizenship, as is knowledge about one or two more areas. That alone will provide a yardstick of comparison to the Central European who is cosmopolitically inclined to hypertension and yet, at the same time, so strongly dominated, in his practical action, by his immediate circumstance and its spatial confinement, even by the shadow of his neighbor’s house, city hall, and church steeple. But are there really legitimate grounds for an applied science which is so close to the threshold of art, i.e. something that may not arise alone from the soul of the creative man, from his personality, in other words: are there inorgenic fundamental conditionsXXIV that decisively influence the space on earth and thus the people acting in it? The doing and acting of every artist, every creative man, can be effective only in time and space, and the margin of the political artist is influenced, more than that of any other, by their laws. But before we attempt to recognize these in a determined area on earth, even if it is the largest one on our planet, there arises still the preliminary question concerning the justification of constructing a Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean. From this preliminary question result series of other preliminary questions which must be solved elsewhere, as for instance that of the position of the geopolitics of a determined earth area within the framework of global geopolitics, or of geopolitics in its relationship to political geography, or of the themes and objectives of geopolitics as Rudolph Kjellén (1) wied to answer them during World War I. We refer the reader to him in this respect. Another question arises: Is there perhaps — in spite of the shattering of Central Europe - a law of growing spaces, as Ratzel (2) suspects — whom Kjellén himself quotes as his guide, when he writes: Every land, every sea must always also be conceived as a space which first needs to be known, inhabited, and politically fulfilled before it can become effective toward the outside. This inner development scized at first the smaller spaces and overpowered them. . . and progressed from them to larger ones . .. Out of this struggle for space we now see in historical time always emerge single larger political spaces . . . Traffic is a struggle with space, the prize of victory of this struggle is the subjected space . . . The 352 million square kms of ocean are a historical factor, too . and the extent of surface of every sea and every section of sea has its historical significance . . . from coast to coast, history has grown across the seas, first across the narrow ones, then over the wide ones, The Pacific Ocean will always be the largest by far, for it comprises 45% of the surface of the world ocean. This train of thought surely justifies, in its outset, the attempt to follow these suggestions with a Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean, with studies of theXXV correlations between geography and history in the Pacific Ocean. The posing of the question whether there actually is a geopolitics of the Pacific, and whether there is, besides the non-political oceanography (which over years filled with work we have raised to such a remarkably high standard in Germany), also a political oceanography, will also have to follow up the foundations of causality and natural science. And alongside runs the impetus, which leads from political geography and geopolitics over to the political sciences and practical politics. Only thus, will the attempt prove its full right to existence in our frankly double- faced science of geography: exactly at the point, of course, between sciences and aris which it overbridges. Viewed from the position which calls for a political oceanography, our work would thus be a complex of partial questions, a section of a total view of the earth, which would have to start from its individual sea spaces. In proceeding thus, it could select two only apparently opposed starting points: either the receding of the old, land-confining spanning, apolitical okeanos concept (as such it actually washes today only around the Antarctic) opposite to mankind, extending its living space; or the process of development from the smaller, historically out-lived sea space towards ever larger history-spanning spaces conquered by traffic. But the decisive thing would be here that one would have to examine, not in the first place the land spaces, but rather the continuous sea spaces with regard to their fundamental geographic characteristics which determine the course of events: Thus, to begin with, sea sections like the Aegean (Maull), the inland sea of Japan (Schmitthenner), and inland seas like the Pontus and the Baltic, then marginal seas like the Sea of Japan, mediterraneans like the Roman, (Philippson, Hummel), the Australo-Asiatic, the American one, as Lautensach has done in the Zeitschrift flr Geopolitik, finally the oceans and last the largest among them, the Pacific Ocean. Such a method of geopolitical examination would have to distinguish the course of events geopolitically determined by surface form, coastal shape, climate and biogeography, the earthbound one, from the one that can be explained purely in political terms, which alone originates through human will aiming atXXVI acquisition, keeping, shifting of power. It would further have to examine, with anthropo-geographic methods, what transformations which appear only to be moved by cultural and power motives, others which are determined by geographically comprehensible causes, which ones, on the other hand, result purely from human will, uninfluenced by the circumstance and its surface form, indeed, even maintained in contrast to it. Thus, research of this kind appears to have moved up to one of the most captivating objectives of science: for it is as all encompassing as few are, and may become the general means of education in our time for the education of peoples to give them geopolitical insight. As the geopolitical contemplation of earth spaces like the Pacific Ocean has been recognized as a need, in the intellectual life of Central Europe, by men like Ratzel and Richthofen, previously already by Ritter, Roon, and Peschel and their predecessors, and as it was conceived by them in brilliant individual performances; since it then was taken up again by outstanding seamen (Tirpitz, Hollweg, Foss), overseas officials (3), political writers (4) colonial researchers (Hans Meyer) and cultural politicians (Weule and Wilczek), it is hardly possible to deny its justification, as generally that of geopolitics as a science. Its problems appear in the background of Nachod’s so strongly culturally oriented History of Japan, they influence the best among the missionaries, admittedly or unadmittedly in the geographic and ethnic aspect of their work (Wilhelm, Schiller, Haas, Engelhardt), as well as Hans Meyer. Meyer, both in the practical and theoretical accomplishment of his life, and in his last work conceming the Dutch colonial empire shows this influence. Geopolitics and culture have no less influence on the creators of the German Colonial Dictionary and their collaborators. In the mutilated Germany of today, of course, the call for a macro-spatial, geopolitical education is farther away than ever from its fulfillment; and yet, the example of our enemies should teach us. Every conscious start in this direction has yielded them such tangible practical success, not only to the Anglo-Saxons and Japanese, but also to the twice transoceanically renewed France. With 274 against 51 votes, the British Parliament decided, around the first of May 1923, asXXVII a fitting homage to “World Peace Day,” to invest over a period of ten years, not only 9.5 or 11 million pounds sterling as originally requested by the government, but 20 of them in the form of fortifications in the Strait of Singapore. To what extent was this an act of far-sighted geopolitics? In 1924, it was only adjourned, not abolished and it is precisely the trained geopoliticians of the Pacific Ocean who see to this. In the meantime, they forgot neither Hongkong nor Port Darwin, nor the air defense of Australia, suggested by Hughes, in the grandest scale. To it corresponded, from the direction of the U.S.A., the air defense of Dutch Harbour and Fairbanks. According to the memoranda which they directed to the German government in the spring of 1924, Australia, Newfoundland, and New Zealand (5) believed in the future importance of a geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean, and in 1923 5/6 of the British Imperial Parliament had agreed with them. But tangible and visible successes of enemies alone, making use of geopolitical education, were not decisive for our quest. Would all the above be able to determine their response in a majority among the ideologically inclined Germans - as beneficial as the practical educational efficacy of the vast Pan- Pacific objective might be in itself - without the purely scientific and artistic challenge of the problem per se? Already the collateral scientific tasks are not without such attraction: even if the purpose of creating a large base at the joining of the Indian and the Pacific political space for an imperiled maritime power were posed in purely political terms, as in the case of Singapore, there would still remain, as a captivating objective for geopolitical science, the correct choice of the location. Its geometric spot lies, upon precise checking, between New Zealand, Port Jervis, Moresby, Darwin, and the Strait of Malakka in a northern direction up to the Isthmus of Krah, within which again Singapore was neither the most convincing nor even the only possible site. The collateral problem of constructing bases with geographic objectives operational entered the picture. If already in this way one single controversial key point shows the whole geographical, historical, political-scientific, educational value of geopolitical studies in the Pacific Ocean, how much more will the entire range of its components show, once it is understood from the artistic, purely human side.XXVil Of course, more easily than in front of a map or a book this is done on shipboard. Contemplating the endless swell of the Pacific Ocean, looking at once German palm islands in the green atoll-bowls, which are surrounded by the waves of the blue South Sea, covered with white froth we absorb the flavor of the great ocean. Basking in the reflection of the Fuji-san, glowing in the spring light before the red sun, high above an agitated play of colors, which the art of a Hokusai was indeed able to paint as the idea of the wave we begin to understand. In such cases, the sober problem of geopolitics also reveals something of its demonic beauty; its spell will not release us and we understand even if not in a rational way, how whole nations could fall victims to the enticement of certain foreign charms, Souther suns, and why again and again, like moths attracted by the light, they fly to the spaces that seem desirable to them. Even if one recognizes, weighing the possible and the impossible in space and time, the danger which is connected with it, but which can be reduced, precisely through scientific geopolitical work, the striving for what appears impossible becomes understandable. Thus, one may comprehend now, how one may feel the duty to further keep alive and carry the burning wish to contemplate the greatest view on earth, the ancient longing of the Germanic peoples for the wide, warm seas, until its solution, somehow, through a more favorable world fate. Not to let this wish for overseas, this great geopolitical longing, become extinguished even in a narrow and pusillanimous time, that is quite certainly also one of the aims of the quest of this book, perhaps even its most noble and most unselfish one, which renews also many other, old quests for the meaning of history. What precisely entitles us Central Europeans to hold on to it, which is so remote in space? What, most of all, entitles the author who, back from the Pacific fought throughout the World War and then settled in the Bavarian highlands, became rooted there and changed from a leader of troops to university professor? Should it only be the attraction of the Nitimur in vetitum cupimusque semper negata (we always strive for the forbidden and crave for what is denied us) that leads the German to the warm seas, which are supposed to be prohibitedXxIX to him alone, and which he so ardently is craving for throughout his entire history? In that case, calculating reason should rather wam against entering such spaces in imagination, than to picture them in a seductive manner. If it were only an outburst of memory, as for instance the one that made Durer write home from Venice: “Oh, how shall I freeze for the sun!” then it would be an emotion, sentimental, without giving strength, rather sapping it, which we cannot afford now. And it would mean impotent spite, if we only wanted to mutter: “And yet, we sailed it!” like a great physicist when he had to deny what he had recognized to be true: “And yet, it moves!” But that we were also able to do, and with another, deeper sense, those few survivors of the von Spee squadron when their ships ~ after the last kiss of the God of victory on their flag in the Pacific Ocean, before Coronel - sank into the icy waves of the Atlantic off the Falkland Islands, down into the depths with black, white, and red colors flying. Proudly, as in an old Nordic saga of a Viking voyage to distant Thule, ends the last to bear arms under the old German war flag in the vast spaces of the largest ocean on earth. No embarrassing memory for the German flag of honor, ‘as that of its foes, no treachery, nothing unglorious adheres to their journeys: it is a fare-well of heroes, honored as such even by the enemy. The Emden bravely defended the tiny seaside resort of Tsingtau, against a world power; and finally some venturesome New Guinea journeys show what this farewell from this space of the earth means to us; true experiences, as in tales of a Thousand and One Nights, lead individual men home from there or to other battle fields: the Ayesha, the aviator from Tsingtau (whose “Silvercondor” sank years later on Fireland for the honor of German research), fugitives from East Asia, the Bavarian pioneer from the forest of the birds of Paradise. While we certainly have to regret the territorial losses in the Pacific Ocean, its material magnitude has become clear in Germany to only very few or. has come much too late to their awareness, perhaps fortunately so. But the heart beats faster with the memory of the spiritual values saved there, of moral, immaterial, immortal success, disfigured by no breakdown and which is alsoXXX recognized by enemies, as was the cultural success in Shantung by the otherwise certainly not Germanophile Far Eastern Review (6). The enemy's respect and pride of the defeated accompany the retreat of the German attempts at establishing power in the Pacific space; but it preserves something for us that cannot be lost. ‘And alone from the spiritual values that cannot be lost, lost spiritual strength, wavering belief in oneself, find regeneration — in the individual and in the mass of a nation. Treasures that are eaten by moths and rust can be written off and regained. Thus, the largest sea may strongly evoke in us a painful sense of loss, but nowhere with shame, treachery and deceit. We may therefore sail it again, in good cheer, both in our memory and in a better future also in reality! It is for us not a place of chimera, but it is surely one where, rather without hypothesis and relatively unburdened by historical reprobation, we can obtain lessons in geopolitics and world history. But how important these are, is shown by the effect of the Pacific Conference in Washington of 1922. Unrelentingly, power on the earth changes, and precisely the temporarily luckless and therefore joyless person should watch it so much more sharply in order to observe in time, whether and where such changes come about by themselves in his favor or whether they can be accelerated or brought about by him. In the part of the Pacific power field with the richest future, the space consciousness of the largest natural landscape of the planet, its largest sea space is awakening. The adjacent countries, America, the British Empire, China, Japan, Russia, have become aware of certain common conditions of life and fundamental features, as of the community of fate which lies enclosed in it. Our main oppressor, France, there produces the effect of a disturbing foreign body; we ‘ourselves, however, no longer share in it by earthly possession of space and are therefore unencumbered. The geopolitical Pacific community of destiny expresses itself at first in efforts to organize the opposite shores. For the moment, however, these attempts emerge only from particularly far-sighted individual groups: such is the Pan-Pacific Union with cultural and economic orientation, as it became evident at the meetings of Honolulu, 1922, San Francisco and Sidney,