Political Geography Quarterly最新文献

The history of German geography ascribes the aberrations of the discipline from 1900–1945, especially during the National Socialist period, mainly to the negative influence of geopolitics. The example of the political concepts of political geography and geopolitics, however, shows that the lack of theoretical foundations and ideological one-sidedness are responsible for this development. Accordingly, geopolitics was not an innovation but only reinforces patterns of thinking which have been a component of the German geography since the end of the 19th century and only made possible the rise of geopolitics.

Lately, German intellectuals have once again begun making reference to geographical constants. This is by no means innocuous, for the key terms in this discussion—Germany's Mittellage (central position) and Mitteleuropa (Central Europe)—are lodged in historical memory as representatives of Germany's striving for power and hegemony, a goal of German foreign policy since Wilhelminian imperialism until as late as 1945. A look at the history of geography shows that this reference to geographical constants is impermissible. Mittellage and Mitteleuropa, also, were not employed in a politically neutral manner. Using the Mittellage concept, Germany was given a special role in Europe which, in accordance with historical circumstances, could assume a defensive or offensive aspect. Mitteleuropa was originally a broad tract of land extending from the French Atlantic coast to the Black Sea or Ural Mountains, separating Nonhern and Southern Europe. With the founding of the German Reich (1871), the Mitteleuropa concept, too, became a political character. Consequently, the German striving for hegemony acquired the aspect of scientifically founded necessity. After 1945, instead of critical approach to the misuse of Mittellage and Mitteleuropa, geographers lamented that once again Germany had become a victim of its Mittellage.

Recent forms of territorial ideologies in West Germany, mainly nationalism and regionalism, are used to analyse the social use of a symbolic argument within a historical context which has few counterparts in modern world history. Concepts such as a reunified Germany, a central Europe consciousness and regional identity are illustrated along a left-right political axis ranging from neofascist activities to ideas promoted by the peace movement. Though a hypothesis of a unique historical experience is emphasized, the descriptive elements are incorporated in a general approach to territorial ideologies with an emphasis on critical theory at the end.

In this case study, the Galilee region is examined within the context of territorial control. Since the region is characterized by a large concentration of a numerically dominant Arab population, state planning policy—which is motivated by Zionist ideology—has aimed at preventing the formation of an Arab ‘core area’ there. The policy of Judaization, implemented in various stages to create a new and alternative ‘Jewish core’ in mountainous Galilee, has significantly shaped the unique pattern of urbanization in the local Arab settlements. The failure of this state strategy to achieve a positive Jewish demographic balance and to break up the territorial continuity of Arab lands and settlements has served to strengthen the rootedness of the population in their villages and has acted as a retarding influence on rural-urban migration.

Persuasive cartography in Nazi Germany is generally believed to be the product of the German school of Geopolitik centered on a mythical institute in Munich. Although Geopolitik and national socialism shared many causes, the persuasive maps that were designed by progenitors of both doctrines differed not only in their graphic form but also in their political content. The main document that is customarily cited to support the argument that persuasive mapping in Geopolitik and national socialism were synonymous, Giselher Wirsing's atlas The War in Maps (published in 1941 by the German Library of Information in New York), is shown to be a purely national socialist production without notable input from practitioners of Geopolitik.

The transformation of sovereignty into effective territorial control may be implemented by a variety of methods, ranging from agreement (based on legitimization) to imposition (based on force). The imposition of control through a combination of military and civilian presence takes place in many societies. Both of these forms of imposed control have been used in Israel during the past 40 years. While civilian settlement is perceived as forming an integral part of the national security and defence policy, recent events in the Golan Heights, Jordan Valley, West Bank and the Galilee would suggest that the basis for such policy-making is faulty. Not only do civilian settlements not always contribute to the security/military objectives, but in many cases make the maintenance of control more difficult.