Modified Concept of Midland Basin (1943)

Let us begin with a small historical context.

During World War I, Halford Mackinder gave us the famous Heartland Theory, where he emphasized land power — especially the vast landmass of Central Eurasia — as the key to global dominance.

But by 1943, the world was no longer the same.

• World War II was ongoing.
• Technological advancements had changed the nature of warfare — now sea and air power were as crucial as land control.
• Global alliances were shifting.

In this new geopolitical environment, Mackinder revisited and refined his earlier theory. This led to the conceptualization of the Midland Basin.

🧭 What is the Midland Basin?

Mackinder now recognized a new geostrategic core — not in Central Asia — but in the North Atlantic Region.

He observed:

“The two sides of the Atlantic — North America and Western Europe — were now deeply connected by sea and air communication, and together, they formed an unmatched combination of industrial and military power.”

So, he proposed a new core area called the Midland Basin, which included:

• Eastern United States
• Western Europe
• The North Atlantic Ocean (as the bridge linking the two)

This area, according to Mackinder, was now a new centre of geopolitical gravity.

🗺️ Key Modifications in Mackinder’s Thought

🔹 Exclusion of Eastern USSR:

• Mackinder removed the Soviet Union’s eastern parts (east of Yenisei River) from the Heartland.
• He renamed this eastern zone as “Lenaland” — indicating its reduced geopolitical significance in his revised vision.

🔹 New Geopolitical Centres:

• After Germany’s fall in WWII, Mackinder predicted the emergence of two global power centres:
  1. The Heartland Basin — still centered in Central Eurasia
  2. The Midland Basin — the transatlantic alliance of the US and Western Europe

He envisioned that these two regions would define the post-war global order.

📊 Evaluation of Mackinder’s Revised Model

Let’s now critically evaluate Mackinder’s modified theory.

✅ Strengths

1. Innovative Geo-political Lens:
   Mackinder was among the first to connect geography with international politics, making geopolitics a scientific and analytical field.
2. Remarkably Foresighted:
   • Predicted both World Wars
   • Anticipated power blocs (like NATO) after WWII

❌ Criticisms of Mackinder’s Theory

Let’s group the criticisms for easier understanding:

A. Dilution Through Revisions

• One major criticism is that Mackinder kept modifying his theory.
• Each revision shifted focus — from Heartland to Midland — leading to internal inconsistency.
• Critics argue that the original theory was more coherent, and these changes diluted its core idea.

B. Over-Simplification of History

• Mackinder presented history as a binary conflict:
  Land power vs. Sea power

But in reality:

• History is shaped by a complex interplay of:
  • Physical factors (like climate)
  • Socio-economic conditions
  • Cultural and ideological differences

C. Overestimation of the Heartland

Mackinder overestimated the strategic advantages of the Heartland:

• He assumed it was flat and easy to control, but:
  • In reality, much of the Heartland has rugged terrain
  • It suffers from harsh continental climate and is sparsely populated
• He also believed it was geographically isolated, but:
  • Modern air power and missiles make no place truly isolated
  • Bering Strait and Arctic routes allow access even to the Heartland

His view was likely based on the Mercator map, which exaggerates polar areas, giving a distorted strategic perception.

D. Irrelevance in the Contemporary World

In today’s era, geopolitics is no longer driven solely by land or sea dominance.

Modern factors include:

• Trade wars and cyber warfare
• Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)
• Climate change negotiations
• Rise of Asia (India, China, ASEAN countries) as new global hubs
• Non-state actors like:
  • Terrorist groups
  • Drug cartels
  • Supra-national organizations (UN, WTO, IMF)
• Multinational Corporations (MNCs) with more economic clout than some countries

All of this has added layers of complexity to global geopolitics — making simple territorial theories insufficient.

🧠 Conclusion: Mackinder’s Lasting Legacy

Despite its limitations, Mackinder’s modified theory remains a milestone in geopolitical thought.

• It teaches us how space and power interact.
• It reminds us that geography is not neutral — it shapes politics, strategy, and conflict.
• Even today, conflicts over Central Asia, Ukraine, and Arctic navigation routes reflect echoes of Mackinder’s vision.

Like all great thinkers, Mackinder’s strength was not just in what he got right — but in opening a new way of thinking.