Talk:Geopolitik

message: The author of this article arbitrary decided the german scholars of Geopolitics are a "different kind of beast" and their discipline of study is infact a different one , hence he labeled it "Geopolitik" which is just merely the german translation of the word "Geopolitics".
I said "arbitrary" because I don't see any study supporting this bizarre and and unique theory, most certainly there is no clear references justifying it. Infact it's the personal believe of the author; problem is encyclopedias are summaries of extant scholarship not stages to exercise our personal unorthodox and in some cases ineducate ideas.
There is clearly a political purpose behind all this, which is to deal with the alleged connections between National Socialism and some pivotal geopolitical ideas.
To "shield Geopolitic from certain implications, the author decided to sacrifice a branch of it, manifacturing this  deceiving scheme, and bending the truth to his purpose. Infact, even if every country had his own specific interpretation of the discipline their works, and scholars influenced eachother, crossing back and forth.
There would be no Mackinder without Ratzel, and no Haushofer without Mackinder.. infact the term "Geopolitics" and many of it's implications wouldn't even exist without Rudolf Kjellén himself.
The ideology of Adolf Hitler is connected with the ideas of these men just as much as any leadership is the expression of the culture they rapresent.
Writing on top of the entry "Not to be confused with Geopolitics" goes even further: it takes a stance that once again has little or nothing to do with sharing informations.
But the author has done much more than that: he went as far as editing every single german geopolitics scholar named in this entry and  replacing any reference to the term geopolitics with geopolitik, making difficult for the anyone trying to connect the articles. Althoughts they are named in the "Geopolitics" article which he couldn't probably edit without a fight, and since he has no defendable cause he didn't take it.
Now I believe this article should be deleted entirely since the "geopolitics" page already mentions those authors and in a correct and comprehensive way. 
 Ialkarn (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible article that should be deleted

message: As far as I - as a German - know, the term Geopolitik is not used with this completely negative meaning in Germany, but instead just like "geostrategy". I believe this should be mentioned in the article to avoid confusion when reading German texts.
62.227.183.91 (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage in Germany

message: This article is highly pov and biased. The links made between the political geographers and the Nazi regime are re-purpotrating myths of Allied demonization of geopolitics. This paragraphy alone says it all:
'Its defining charcteristic, differentiating it from American, British, French or other schools of geopolitics, is the inclusion of organic state theory, and a clash of civilizations informed by Social Darwinism. It is perhaps the closest of any school of geostrategy to a purely nationalistic conception of geostrategy, lacking more universal elements'.
This is nonesense. In developing many of its theories, such as clash of civilzations - a term coined by an 1980s american geopolitician - it drew on British and other thought, from people such as Mackinder and some Swedish guy who's name escpaes me. 
I don't, unfortunately, have the time at the moment to give to this article, but I do intend to clean it up if no one else does. In paticular, I think:
# It should be split into two articles, one discussing German nationalism during the two world wars and one discussing Geopolitik - German geopolitics in the run up to and including World War Two
# This aritcle should be edited to explain that many of criticsims of German geopolitik could be - and are - labeled at geopolitical theoreis accross the world. For a source of this see Gearoid O'Tuthail's Critical Geopolitics.
# The fact that Hitler's work and the geopolitical theories were quite different should be more emphasised. In invading Russia, Hitler countered his supposed 'guiding' theories as Haushofer had argued that an invasion of Russia was wrong and not necessary. This sort of stuff is mentioned,  but should be made more prominenet.
Like I say, I'm happy to edit the article myself, but this is one of the most pov on Wikipedia at the moment and I don't have time (and possibly the full requisit knowledge) to do it myself. Robdurbar 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robdurbar, I think you're looking for the Geostrategy and Geopolitics articles.  This one only deals with German geopolitik, hence the exclusion of a wide amount of material on geopoliticians in general, such as Alfred Thayer Mahan, Halford Mackinder, Nicholas Spykman, Rudolf Kjellen (the Swede whose name escaped you), etc.  As far as the "clash of civilizations" theory by Samuel Huntington, that has nothing to do with this article.  I'm not sure why you've brought it up.  O'Tuthail's criticisms of Geopolitics ought to go in the main Geopolitics article.  Finally, this article does examine the differences between previous German geostrategies and Hitler's, as well as their similarities.  Furthermore, every paragraph of this article is fully cited with academic sources.  I welcome collaborating on this article with you, but let's be sure we're clear about what we're editing first.—thames 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mention clash of civilizations as its quoted in the first sentence; I mention the criticisms of geopolitics as this aritcle claims that only german geopolitik is guilty of these things. I agree that it is academiccaly sourced and my initial rant is perhaps over the top; it is really only the intro that I have a problem with; like I say, am a bit busy at the mo, tied up with the rest of my watchlist, but will be happy to help with this article at the weekend; it just icnensed me when i read it. Robdurbar 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you mentioned.  I must have overlooked that.  I look forward to working with you on the article, and to your contributions to a revised lede.—thames 22:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it does describe actual policy.  The whole Hitler section comes from a manuscript he wrote describing his foreign policy goals before WWII.  It's his strategy, not his policy.—thames 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Terrible
 Article that could be improved

message: Just asking.
T
85.166.162.202 (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this subject linked to "Origins..." in the "Nazism" article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geopolitik. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050622085518/http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/51.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/51.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified