⁸⁶ In Maull's treatise, this portion constitutes over two-thirds (484 pages) of the total and was rated by Schlüter as much the most valuable part.

⁸⁷ Lord Curzon of Keddleston, Frontiers (Oxford, 1908)Google Scholar; Fawcett, Frontiers, op. cit. To these might be added Holdich, Th. H., Political Frontiers and Boundary Making (London, 1916)Google Scholar, an illuminating description of practical problems drawn from the author's experiences on boundary commissions in Central Asia and South America (Argentina-Chile).

⁸⁸ Contrary to Lord Curzon's impression, accepted by Fawcett and others, that he was the first to consider this topic systematically, the German literature begins with studies of Ratzel and his student Förster, A., Zur Geographie der politischen Grenze (Diss. Leipzig, 1893)Google Scholar, in its time an important study, published in part in Mitt. d. Ver. f. Erdkunde (Leipzig, 1892)Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Sölch, J., in his brief but masterly study, Die Auffassung der “natürlichlichen Grenzen” in der wissenschaftlichen Geographie (Innsbruck, 1924)Google Scholar, based largely on the system developed by Sieger, gives an excellent view of most of the work to that date. Since then have appeared Haushofer, K., Grenzen in ihrer geographischen und politischen Bedeutung (Berlin, 1927)Google Scholar; Maull, Otto, Politische Grenzen (Weltpol. Bücherei, Bd. 3, Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar; and Col. Vittorio Adami (of the Historical Section, Italian General Staff), National Boundaries in Relation to International Law (London, 1927)Google Scholar. A longer list is cited in Hartshorne, op. cit., pp. 195–196. I have discussed some of these terms and suggested a number of new ones in “Suggestions on the Terminology of Political Boundaries” in “Festschrift zur Ehre Wilhelm Vole,” Mitteil. d. Ver. d. Geographen a.d. Univ. Leipzig (in press).

⁹⁰ Sieger made this point first in 1902 in “Die Grenzen Niederösterreich,” Jahrb. f. Landeskunde Niederösterreich N. F. 1, and discussed it most fully in “Zur pol.-geog. Terminologie,” op. cit. It can perhaps more readily be found in his items on “Grenztheorie” and “Natürliche Grenzen” in Politisches Handwörterbuch (Leipzig, 1923)Google Scholar, in Sölch, op. cit., or in Maull, , Politische Geographie, pp. 142–147Google Scholar. Similar conclusions were drawn by Vallaux, in 1911, and Febvre, in 1923, apparently independently of each other and certainly of Sieger, since neither of these French writers appears to have heard of him. The substitute classification which Vallaux first offered, in Le Sol et l'État, pp. 367 ff., is interesting but hardly satisfactory, as he seems now to admit by omitting it from his later work, Brunhes and Vallaux, op. cit., pp. 354–361.

⁹¹ Sölch, op. cit., pp. 49–51. See also his “The Brenner Region,” Sociol. Rev., Oct., 1927, pp. 1–17Google Scholar. His statements in regard to the language divide are confirmed by the extraordinarily fine maps (one based on the pre-war Austrian statistics, one on the 1921 Italian census), in Schwalm, Hans, “Volks- und Kulturboden in Tyrol,” Handwörterbuch des Grenz- und Auslanddeutschtums (Breslau), Band IGoogle Scholar.

⁹² An excellent detailed treatment, on a somewhat different basis, is found in Uhlig, C., Die Bessarabische Frage, eine geopolitische Betrachtung (Breslau, 1927)Google Scholar.

⁹³ Sieger finds that the word describes both “areas of a certain medium order with uniform character, and also their sensually perceptible peculiarity,” rev. of Maull's, Politische Geographie, in Oeog. Z., 1926, p. 379Google Scholar. Penck, Albrecht, writing on “Geography Among the Earth's Sciences,” in English, writes “Landschaft (region),” in Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 1927, pp. 621–644Google Scholar, reference on p. 640. According to Preston James, the use of the English word “landscape” in this sense is justified by its original use in the Old English form. James, op. cit., pp. 78–79.

⁹⁴ Op. cit., pp. 80–85.

⁹⁵ Ibid., pp. 601–608.

⁹⁶ “Morphology of Landscape,” op. cit., p. 46.

⁹⁷ Compare Brunhes and Vallaux, op. cit., pp. 24–25; de la Blache, P. Vidal, Atlas général (Paris, 1894, 1921)Google Scholar, preface.

⁹⁸ Whittlesey, Derwent S., “Andorra's Autonomy,” !Jour. Mod. Hist., June, 1934, pp. 147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar; similarly, in his “Trans-Pyrenean Spain: The Val D'Aran,” Scot. Geog. Mag., 1933, pp. 217–228Google Scholar. The comparison between these two studies and the same writer's earlier study of Cuba, “Geographic Factors in the Relation of the United States and Cuba,” Geog. Rev., 1922, pp. 241–256Google Scholar, illustrates strikingly the difference between political geography studied as a branch of “the science of areas” and that studied in terms of relationships.

⁹⁹ Hartshorne, op. cit., pp. 196–198.

¹⁰⁰ Op. cit., pp. 128–130.

¹⁰¹ Maull, Otto, “Kultur- und politischgeographische Entwicklung und Aufgaben des heutigen Grieohenlands,” und “Karte des Makedonisch-Albanischen Grenzgürtels,” Mitt. Geogr. Ges. in München, 1915, pp. 145–165Google Scholar, Taf. vii.

¹⁰² Thus in the appraisal of political boundaries in Upper Silesia the writer, to the disappointment of some readers, abstains rigorously from any conclusion “for” or “against” the “Geneva boundary” of 1922, or as to what, if anything, should be done about it.

¹⁰³ These concepts are discussed at length in all of the recent German studies of importance. For critical analysis of the views of Kjellén, Penck, Sieger, Sölch, and Maull, see Sölch, op. cit., pp. 35–46; Maull, op. cit., pp. 613–625.

¹⁰⁴ This situation was analyzed for Tennessee by Glenn, C. G., in Resources of Tennessee (April, 1915), pp. 44–63Google Scholar, republished as “The Geographic Divisions of Tennessee,” in Colby, C. C., Source Book for the Economic Geography of North America (Chicago, 1921, 1922), pp. 246–256Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ A valuable contribution of geography to the problem of local governmental units is given in Stephen B. Jones' detailed study of “Intra-State Boundaries in Oregon,” which emphasizes the importance of the transportation pattern in any plan for county consolidation. The Commonwealth Review (University of Oregon), July, 1934, pp. 105–126Google Scholar; (see abstract in my note in forthcoming number of the Geog. Rev.)

^105a Op. cit., p. 130.

¹⁰⁶ Wright, J. K., “Voting Habits in the United States,” Geog. Rev., 1932, pp. 666–672Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Hartshorne, op. cit., 209–212. Volz, Wm., Die Volkische Struklur Oberschlesiens (Breslau, 1921), pp. 5–13Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Bowman, , Geography in Relation to the Social Sciences, pp. 207–209Google Scholar; Sauer, “Recent Developments in Cultural Geography,” op. cit., p. 210.

¹⁰⁹ Op. cit., p. 130.

¹¹⁰ Such a study would be of quite different character from either Demangeon's or Fawcett's studies of the British Empire.

¹¹¹ But there is much of value for political geography in Fr.Ratzel, , Das Meer als Quelle der Völkergrosse. Eine politisch-geographische Studie (Munich, 1900, 1911)Google Scholar; Haushofer, K., Geopolitik des Pazifischen Ozeans, Studien über die Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Geographie und Geschichte (Berlin, 1924, 1928)Google Scholar; März, Josef, Landmächte und Seemächte (Weltpol. Bücherei, Bd. 10, Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar, and Die Ozeane, in der Politik und Staatenbildung (Breslau, 1931)Google Scholar; as well as in Admiral Mahan's classic study, Sea Power and History, and that of a follower from the British Navy, Admiral G. A. Ballard: America and the Atlantic (New York, 1923)Google Scholar.

¹¹² Hartshorne, op. cit., pp. 208, 213–223; and “The Upper Silesian Industrial District,” Geog. Rev., July, 1934, pp. 423–438Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Hassinger, H., “Der Staat als Landschaftsgestalter,” Z. f. Geopolitik, 1932, pp. 117–122, 182–187Google Scholar; Whittlesey, Derwent, “The Impress of Effective Central Authority upon the Landscape,” Annals Assoc. Amer. Geog., June, 1935, pp. 85–97Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Op. cit., p. 218.

¹¹⁵ Maull, op. cit., pp. 43–44. Passarge and Hassinger, on the other hand, include this as part of political geography.

¹¹⁶ “Aufgaben und Methoden der politischen Geographie,” op. cit., pp. 456–460.

¹¹⁷ For the distinction here, see Hettner, op. cit., pp. 145–146. Hettner, however, recognizes that certain individual geographers who have lived among primitive peoples “have maintained a personal union with ethnology.” Passarge would presumably be included among these.

¹¹⁸ The logical extreme of this is found in Banse's discussion of the relation of such characteristics in peoples and nations to the development of the state and the conduct of war. Op. cit.

¹¹⁹ Including Vallaux, Vogel, Dix, Maull, Fairgrieve, and, of course, all those who wrote in terms of the relations of geography and (political) history.

¹²⁰ Lautensach, , Geopolitik (Frankfurt a.M., 1929), pp. 5–7Google Scholar; R. Sieger, items on “Politische Geographie,” “Geopolitik,” and “Staatenkunde,” in Politisches Handwörterbuch (Leipzig, 1923)Google Scholar.

¹²¹ Adolf Grabowsky, until recently editor of the Zeitschrift für Politik, more than any other non-geographer of our time, has concerned himself with the relation of political geography to political science. In particular, he emphasizes the distinction between the former which studies present areas and the latter which studies the dynamics of state changes. See particularly his Staat und Raum (Weltpol. Bücherei, Bd. I, Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar.

¹²² Since first writing this, I find that Maull had previously used the same analogy, though it led him to an opposing conclusion, since he includes physiography in geography. Maull, Otto, “Politische Geographie und Geopolitik,” Geog. Anz., 1926, p. 251Google Scholar.

¹²³ Op. cit., pp. 119, 145. See also Barrows, op. cit., p. 4; Douglas Johnson, op. cit., pp. 208–211.

¹²⁴ Maull, loc. cit.

¹²⁵ For example, Whittlesey's study of Cuba, op. cit. Whittlesey, now a geographer, was originally trained in political science.

¹²⁶ The difficulties are illustrated in my studies of Upper Silesia, where an understanding of the political geography required a study of materials inadequately, or not at all, prepared by workers in the proper fields, on such matters as recent history, the results of the plebiscite, or the status of the “Wasser-polnish” dialect.

¹²⁷ Hettner, op. cit., p. 146.

¹²⁸ Quoted in Lautensach, H., Geopolitik, p. 6Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ Since this criticism is directed particularly, though by no means solely, at the followers of Geopolitik, it is only fair to note, among other exceptions in which the principal interest of geography is kept constantly before the reader, Haushofer, Albrecht, Pass-staaten in den Alpen (Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar. Perhaps with this idea in mind, the author, who is the son of the leader of the Geopolitik group and himself a regular correspondent in its Zeitschrift, classifies his book in political geography rather than in Geopolitik.

¹³⁰ Albrecht Haushofer states the danger well in the preface of his Pass-staaten in den Alpen. Maull's Politische Geographie maintains objectivity more nearly completely than any other major treatise in the field. A fine example of conscious separation of science and its political application is given by Sölch in the study frequently referred to. He presents first a rigorously scientific study of boundary theory, 49 pages, followed by two pages of application to the Brenner territory, in which he, as Austrian-born and a professor at Innsbruck (since moved to Heidelberg), was nationally interested.

¹³¹ Haushofer recommends, as an excellent brief description of the field with full bibliography, Hennig, R. and Körholz, , Einführing in die Geopolitik (Leipzig, 1933)Google Scholar. Hennig's earlier and fuller treatise, Geopolitik, die Lehre vom Stoat als Labewesen (Leipzig, Berlin, 1928, 1931)Google Scholar, accepted with some reservations by Haushofer, has been sharply criticized from both sides of the field; by Krebs, in Geog. Z., 1929, p. 118Google Scholar, and by Grabowsky, in Z. f. Politik, 1931, p. 443Google Scholar. For the cartographic methods developed in Geopolitik, see Schmidt-Haack, , Geopolitischer Typenatlas. Zur Einführing in die Grundbegriffe der Geopolitik (Gotha, 1929)Google Scholar.

¹³² Maull, , “Politische Geographie und Geopolitik,” Geog. Anz., 1926, pp. 245–253Google Scholar. In a reply in the following pages, Haushofer disagrees only on the basis of practical educational policy.

¹³³ In various notes and reviews in the Zeitschrift für Politik, of which he was co-founder and co-editor until his recent removal—notably in a lengthy critique “Das Problem der Geopolitik,” Z. f. Politik, 1933, pp. 765–802Google Scholar; and in the series of Welt-politische Bücherei of which he was editor, including his own volume on Staat und Raum.

¹³⁴ Maull referred here no doubt to the “geopolitical reporting” of world news in the Z. f. Geopolitik. These are somewhat similar to the interpretations of news by various historians and political scientists in Current History Magazine, but unfortunately are written, by only three writers, each of whom must interpret monthly the events in one third of the world. Hence Maull's reports of “the American world” (in which he is “at home” in Brazil) are not to be taken as a measure of that scholar's abilities. He has since given up this work.

¹³⁵ Maull, loc. cit. Writing a year or so earlier, Maull classified Geopolitik along with Ethno-Wirtschafts-, Sozio- and Herrschaftspolitik as subjects to be cultivated by Staatswissenschaft (political science?). But for the development of the science of the state, geography is an indispensable basis.Politische Geographie, pp. 71–78.

¹³⁶ From the criticism of the communist writer Wittfogel, K. B., “Geopolitik, geographischer Materialismus und Marxismus,” Unter dem Banner des Marxismus, 1929Google Scholar, Nos. 1, 4, and 5, quoted in Z. f. Geopolitik, 1932, pp. 581–591Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ Sauer, “Recent Developments in Cultural Geography,” op. cit., p. 208, 210. (It is however misleading to include Maull's Politische Geographie as a product of this school. Although Maull is, or was for a time, a member of the group, there is clearly little or nothing in his book that is taken from Geopolitik.)

¹³⁸ Maull, “Politische Geographie und Geopolitik,” op. cit., pp. 245–246; Grabowsky, “Das Problem der Geopolitik,” op. cit., p. 781.

¹³⁹ “Die Wissenschaft von der politischen Lebensform im (natürlichen) Lebensraum, in ihrer Erdgebundenheit und Bedingtheit durch geschichtliche Bewegung.” Originally stated in an early number of their Zeitschrift, this is repeated, with the addition of the word in parentheses, in Haushofer, K., “Politische Erdkunde und Geopolitik,” in Freie Wege Vergleichender Erdkunde (Festgabe E. v. Drygalski, Munich, 1925), pp. 87, 90Google Scholar; in Haushofer, Obst et al. , Bausteine zur Geopolilik (Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar; and in Lautensach, H., ed., Geopolitik (Frankfort, 1929), p. 5Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ As in his introduction to the German translation of Fairgrieve's work, op. cit. Vogel accused the group in general of having “somewhat neglected the (four) other aspects of Kjellé's system in favor of his Geopolitik, which has developed into a kind of popular catchword.” “Kjellén, Rudolf,” in Encyc. Soc. Sci.

¹⁴¹ Baumann, Max, “Raum und Staat” (in reply to Grabowsky's critique), Z. f. Geopolitik, 1933, pp. 554–559Google Scholar. Likewise the editor's note, which includes both applied political geography and “Biopolitik,” in Geopolitik, Z. f. Geopolilik, 1933, p. 305Google Scholar.

¹⁴² As shown in various recent articles in Z. f. Geopolitik, 1933, pp. 301–304, 305, 501–505, 555–559, 559–564Google Scholar.

¹⁴³ Z. f. Geopolitik, 1932, pp. 591–594Google Scholar. His colleagues “treiben nur als echte Deutsche!” Among the criticisms, which are quoted in part in the following pages of his journal, are: Demangeon, , “Geographie politique,” Annales de Geog., 1932, pp. 22–31Google Scholar; ter Veen, , “De Geopolitik als sociale wetenschap,” de Gids (Amsterdam), 1931, pp. 348–360Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Lautensach almost suggests this: “When there is a well-developed science of the state (Staatslehre), that may perhaps regard Geopolitik with some right as its domain.” Op. cit., p. 5.

¹⁴⁵ Haushofer, op. cit., pp. 89 ff. The charge is directed particularly at German scholars and statesmen whose failure to understand the geographic foundations of their own and other states was, he thinks, a great factor in his country's downfall.

¹⁴⁶ Loc. cit.

¹⁴⁷ Hettner, op. cit., p. 145. This distinction between geography and the geographical aspects of the biological sciences is clarified on pp. 141–142.

¹⁴⁸ In his introduction to Passarge's article on political geography in Z. f. Politik, Oct., 1931, p. 444Google Scholar; and in “Das Problem der Geopolitik,” op. cit., p. 779. In his Staat und Raum: Grundlagen räumlichen Denkens in der Weltpolitik, he depends very largely on the work of the Haushofer school. Note also his qualified agreement with Hettner's viewpoint, p. 9.

¹⁴⁹ “Das Problem der Geopolitik,” op. cit., p. 714; Raum und Staat, pp. 5–11, 28–30, etc.

¹⁵⁰ Note especially the volume edited by Karl Haushofer, with chapters by himself, Lautensach, Maull, W. Geisler and others (including, significantly, Adolf Grabowsky): Jenseits der Grossmächte; Ergänzungsband zur Neubearbeitung der Grossmächte Rudolf Kjelléns (Leipzig-Berlin, 1932)Google Scholar.

¹⁵¹ “It is not for science to hunt around after an objectivity foreign to life. Science, especially political science, should be an expression of the people and the time.” Baumann, , in Z. f. Geopolitik, 1933, p. 556Google Scholar. See also current numbers of the Zeitschrift für Politik, under its new leadership, particularly the revised program for the Hochschule für Politik, , Z. f. Politik, 1933Google Scholar.