The Heartland Theory is slightly outdated and has been considered an integral part of strategy even though it's validity seems only true to a certain extent.
"Whoever controls Eastern Europe controls the Heartland; whoever controls the Heartland rules the World Island; whoever rules the World Island rules the world."
-Halford Mackinder, 1919
So in general terms what exactly does that mean? "Whoever controls Eastern Europe " is fairly obvious; places like Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, the Balkans, etcetera. Next up, the Heartland; the Heartland sits in Eurasia, stretching from the Volga River to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic. For reference: (On the map below it's called the pivot area.)
"Whoever controls Eastern Europe controls the Heartland; whoever controls the Heartland rules the World Island; whoever rules the World Island rules the world."
-Halford Mackinder, 1919
So in general terms what exactly does that mean? "Whoever controls Eastern Europe " is fairly obvious; places like Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, the Balkans, etcetera. Next up, the Heartland; the Heartland sits in Eurasia, stretching from the Volga River to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic. For reference: (On the map below it's called the pivot area.)
The next term that's likely unfamiliar is the World Island. It's basically a fancy name for everything besides the Americas and Australia. In other words, it's the large landmass created by Africa, Asia, and Europe.
There's no real way to be sure of the validity of this theory since no one's actually controlled all of Eastern Europe, the Heartland, or the World Island. Or, you know, the world. Either way, this theory has definitely had an influence on military thinking. Below will be a few examples of empires who have used the Heartland to some extent.
There's no real way to be sure of the validity of this theory since no one's actually controlled all of Eastern Europe, the Heartland, or the World Island. Or, you know, the world. Either way, this theory has definitely had an influence on military thinking. Below will be a few examples of empires who have used the Heartland to some extent.
Russia and the Heartland
The Soviet Union
Russia has always been a good example of this theory since it happens to be right on top of the Heartland. Take a look at the Soviet Union. From it's original position it spread into parts of Eastern Europe and downwards as well. The Soviet Union was in an opportune position after the defeat of Nazi Germany since it allowed easy spread into East Europe. Therefore, Eastern Europe could be utilized as a buffer zone against Western Europe. This put the U.S.S.R. in a very good position since they would be protected from Western invasion via land, and also impervious to sea attack as there are no ports near the Heartland that don't freeze over during the winter. This illustrates pretty well the importance of the physical position of the Heartland; however, the theory is fairly outdated. Even during the U.S.S.R.'s prime there was always the threat of air attack and also atomic warfare. No environment will provide safety from that, but at the time of Mackinder's writing, that really wasn't a problem.
Modern Day Russia
Modern day Russia more or less argues against Mackinder's theory, though it still remains in the middle of the Heartland. The theory implies less importance on sea power yet Russia has created recent problems over control of the Crimean Peninsula and they've sold firearms to Syria so that they can have access to warm water ports. While Russia is likely not looking to try and become a world dominating empire currently, it's focusing on increasing it's sea power which, according to the theory, isn't particularly important.
Heartland Theory and Germany
Nazi Germany
Karl Haushofer, a German general turned geostrategist, developed many theories for the Nazi regime. Many of his theories drew off of Ratzel's Organic State, Mackinder's Heartland Theory, and a few others. American propaganda also claimed Hitler's plan was Mackinder's theory word for word, though they didn't actually mention Halford Mackinder by name. And indeed, Germany did try to take Eastern Europe, but since they had enemies on both the Eastern and Western fronts it was difficult. Even if the theory isn't correct, it has obviously influenced strategies of many.
The Mongolian Empire
From the lower part of the pivot area (Heartland) the Mongols swept first across the Heartland, then parts of Asia, and then the edges of Eastern Europe. The Mongols controlled a large portion of the known world at the time, yet they took control slightly out of order. They took control of the Heartland and then Eastern Europe, even though the theory states "Whoever controls Eastern Europe controls the Heartland". The Mongols instead controlled the Heartland and then eventually, Eastern Europe. This shows the theory can vary and be inconsistent; also showing some steps can be bypassed or done out of order.
The Soviet Union
Russia has always been a good example of this theory since it happens to be right on top of the Heartland. Take a look at the Soviet Union. From it's original position it spread into parts of Eastern Europe and downwards as well. The Soviet Union was in an opportune position after the defeat of Nazi Germany since it allowed easy spread into East Europe. Therefore, Eastern Europe could be utilized as a buffer zone against Western Europe. This put the U.S.S.R. in a very good position since they would be protected from Western invasion via land, and also impervious to sea attack as there are no ports near the Heartland that don't freeze over during the winter. This illustrates pretty well the importance of the physical position of the Heartland; however, the theory is fairly outdated. Even during the U.S.S.R.'s prime there was always the threat of air attack and also atomic warfare. No environment will provide safety from that, but at the time of Mackinder's writing, that really wasn't a problem.
Modern Day Russia
Modern day Russia more or less argues against Mackinder's theory, though it still remains in the middle of the Heartland. The theory implies less importance on sea power yet Russia has created recent problems over control of the Crimean Peninsula and they've sold firearms to Syria so that they can have access to warm water ports. While Russia is likely not looking to try and become a world dominating empire currently, it's focusing on increasing it's sea power which, according to the theory, isn't particularly important.
Heartland Theory and Germany
Nazi Germany
Karl Haushofer, a German general turned geostrategist, developed many theories for the Nazi regime. Many of his theories drew off of Ratzel's Organic State, Mackinder's Heartland Theory, and a few others. American propaganda also claimed Hitler's plan was Mackinder's theory word for word, though they didn't actually mention Halford Mackinder by name. And indeed, Germany did try to take Eastern Europe, but since they had enemies on both the Eastern and Western fronts it was difficult. Even if the theory isn't correct, it has obviously influenced strategies of many.
The Mongolian Empire
From the lower part of the pivot area (Heartland) the Mongols swept first across the Heartland, then parts of Asia, and then the edges of Eastern Europe. The Mongols controlled a large portion of the known world at the time, yet they took control slightly out of order. They took control of the Heartland and then Eastern Europe, even though the theory states "Whoever controls Eastern Europe controls the Heartland". The Mongols instead controlled the Heartland and then eventually, Eastern Europe. This shows the theory can vary and be inconsistent; also showing some steps can be bypassed or done out of order.
This leads to the thought that perhaps Mackinder simply made the Heartland seem more important than it actually is. Perhaps it's a place that has a geographic advantage over some of the other locations around it. Certainly a place with advantages like that would be useful, but that doesn't automatically lead to the ability to make a world empire. But if it just has a geographic advantage then there would have to be many other factors that would make it possible, or impossible, to spread across the entire World Island. In short, control of Eastern Europe and a large chunk of geographically advantageous area known as the Heartland would most likely not simply provide a perfect place for a world empire to start. There are many other variables that would have to contribute. For example, the spreading empire's wealth and military power, the opposition to their spread, and their motivation to spread.
In conclusion, a physical environment with protection from invasion is useful indeed; but the idea is outdated as now there isn't just land and sea power like Mackinder's days. Now there is also air power. Air power is something strongly weakens the Heartland. Now it doesn't really matter if you have an area protected from ground or water invasion, the enemy could come from the air and few physical environments could stop that. The theory has never been proven true, or false, yet many military thinkers have followed Mackinder's theory. This makes the theory seem true and important, and it is, to some extent; yet they simply assumed a world empire could spread from the Heartland and seize the World Island. Controlling Eastern Europe and the Heartland, though, would not necessarily give you control to the Heartland. Like it was mentioned above, more than just the factor of the physical land an empire controls goes into if it could control the World Island.
In conclusion, a physical environment with protection from invasion is useful indeed; but the idea is outdated as now there isn't just land and sea power like Mackinder's days. Now there is also air power. Air power is something strongly weakens the Heartland. Now it doesn't really matter if you have an area protected from ground or water invasion, the enemy could come from the air and few physical environments could stop that. The theory has never been proven true, or false, yet many military thinkers have followed Mackinder's theory. This makes the theory seem true and important, and it is, to some extent; yet they simply assumed a world empire could spread from the Heartland and seize the World Island. Controlling Eastern Europe and the Heartland, though, would not necessarily give you control to the Heartland. Like it was mentioned above, more than just the factor of the physical land an empire controls goes into if it could control the World Island.