The geopolitics of Haushofer

Independently of the fixed ideas of Hitler, the German geopolitics, impelled by Karl Ernst HAUSHOFER, sketch, between 1920 and 1941, a Eurasian continental project, that is to say an extension of the “jus publicum europaeum” to all the continental mass Eurasian and African. This “jus publicum europaeum”, defined by the jurist Carl SCHMITT, involves the creation of a space on which political differences between states are mitigated according to rules of courtesy, eliminating exterminating wills and posing the adversary as a temporary adversary and not an absolute opponent. The geopolitics of HAUSHOFER included the following three projects:
1) Management of the Pacific by Japan, according to the principle that an area of ??economic co-prosperity must never be unified under the aegis of a power foreign to this space.
2) Alliance of Europeans with Turkish, Iranian, Afghan and Indian separatists, so as to enlarge the European security zone. With this project is born the idea of ??an axis “Alexandrine”, starting from the Balkans to rush towards the Indus and even beyond. We will call it “diagonal” because this line starts from Iceland and crosses the Eurasian land mass diagonally, as it is perceived on a planisphere to the Mercator.
3) Formation of a Eurasian bloc centered on three pillars: Germany with its army and its fleet, constituted according to the rules of Tirpitz; the USSR as guardian of the heart of the landmass; Japan as organizer of the Pacific. This triple alliance is to create a Eurasian “Monroe Doctrine” against US interference in Europe and Asia.

For HAUSHOFER as for SCHMITT, this project aims at the constitution of a “nomos” Eurasian where Europe (Russia included) would practice a semi-autarky and self-centering economy, according to the criteria in force in the British Empire . A federalist on the scale of the great land mass, this project provides for the cultural autonomy of the peoples living there, according to the principles in force in Switzerland and in the USSR (which is, let us not forget, a confederation of states) . Even if in the USSR, the federal principle enshrined in the constitution and inherited from LENINE’s thinking has suffered deplorable sprains, of which the whole thing suffers, especially in terms of economic development. HAUSHOFER acts here in accordance with the wishes of the “League of Oppressed Peoples”, formed in Germany and Brussels in the early 20s. HAUSHOFER practiced, in his time, a “third-worldism” realistic and not mis?rabiliste, it is to say truly anti-colonialist. The “third world” of Westerners, Christians or laity, after 1945 hides, behind an insipid moralism, the will to impose on the peoples of Africa and Asia a status of neo-colonialism.

HAUSHOFER will come up against HITLER who wants the English alliance (“The English are Nordics”) and the colonization of Belarus and Ukraine (“Living Space for Germany”). This double choice of HITLER ruins the project of alliance with the Arab and Indian separatists and scuttles the Eurasian “Triplice”, with Germany, the USSR and Japan. While STALINE was a warm supporter of this solution. It is in these Hitlerian errors that we must perceive the reasons for the German defeat of 1945. ROOSEVELT, the great winner of 1945, had perfectly grasped the dynamics and sought to stop it. It pursued two goals: to defeat Germany and Japan, guardian powers of the oceanic facades (Atlantic and Pacific) and to eliminate the economic autonomy of the “Commonwealth”. Faced with the United States, Roosevelt hoped that only a USSR weakened by his war against Germany and von MANSTEIN’s tank divisions would remain.

The role of the United States in the history of this century is to prevent the creation of zones of economic co-prosperity. The war against Hitler and Nazism, the war against Japan confirm it. Immediately after the Second World War, the Cold War sought to put the USSR on its knees because it rejected the Marshall Plan jointly with the East European countries. Ipso facto, a sphere of Eastern European co-prosperity was born, which was shady in the United States. Faced with the EEC, another economic sphere more or less self-centered, the attitude of the United States will be ambiguous: it favors its creation so as to rationalize the implementation of the Marshall Plan but regularly worries about the “Gaullist” or “Bonaparto-Socialists” (the phrase is from the British economist Mary KALDOR). Currently, the economic war is in full swing between the United States and the EEC in the fields of steel and agricultural commodities. The new Cold War inaugurated by REAGAN aims to prevent a rapprochement between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans, thus to reconnect with the Haushoferian tradition or with a more radical interpretation of the HARMEL Doctrine.

This synthesis between the Haushof?rien geopolitical analysis, leftist Gaullism and Doctrine Harmel, we ardently hope that it is realized for the salvation of our peoples. We want a policy of systematic alliance with the peoples of Diagonale, which we mentioned above. The Indian Ocean must be freed from the American presence in the same way as Western Europe, which will reduce to nothing the psychosis of the encirclement that rages in the USSR and will therefore abandon this country to the disastrous implications of the Afghan adventure; thus, Moscow will be able to take care of its objective n ? 1: the profitability of Siberia.


The Japanese threat

As for the Japanese danger, it was the result of Japan’s acquisition, after the First World War, of Micronesia, previously German. In the middle of this immense Micronesia, was located the base of Guam, American since the conflict of 1898 between the United States and Spain. Between Guam and the Philippines, also American, the Japanese had built the naval base of Palau, close to the British outposts of New Guinea and the center of the Guam-Darwin triangle (in Australia) -Singapore. Since Japan wanted to create a vast area of ??Asian co-prosperity, with the potential to encompass Indonesia and its oil fields that could feed the nascent Japanese industry, the British were rightly fearing a “yellow menace” on Australia and the conquest of the eastern facade of the Indian Ocean, less firmly guarded than the Afro-Arab facade.

But the threat to the British imperial equilibrium did not come only from Japanese or Italian actions, but also and especially from the national liberation movements that were organized in the Arab countries (and especially in Egypt) and in the countries of the world. ‘South East Asia. The English knew very well that the Germans (very popular with Arabs and Indians), Italians and Japanese would not have hesitated to actively support the revolts “anti-imperialist” even to use them as “Trojan horses “. And indeed, during the Second World War, Japanese and German recruited Indian legions or supported revolts like that of Iraqi officers in 1941.