!"#$%&'(#)*+%,&$%-.,/*.&-+-%012%34/#5+'$#(1%.6%7.*.'&-.%8#0'&'#+$9
:/2%;<%=+)+>0+'%;?@?
A))+$$%-+(&#*$2%A))+$$%=+(&#*$2%3$B0$)'#C(#./%/B>0+'%D@D?EFEDE9
GB0*#$"+'%H.B(*+-I+
J/6.'>&%8(-%H+I#$(+'+-%#/%K/I*&/-%&/-%L&*+$%H+I#$(+'+-%MB>0+'2%@?<;DNE%H+I#$(+'+-%.66#)+2%O.'(#>+'%P.B$+Q%R<S
E@%O.'(#>+'%T('++(Q%8./-./%L@!%RUPQ%4V
W+.C.*#(#)$
GB0*#)&(#./%-+(&#*$Q%#/)*B-#/I%#/$('B)(#./$%6.'%&B(".'$%&/-%$B0$)'#C(#./%#/6.'>&(#./2
"((C2XX,,,Y#/6.'>&,.'*-Y).>X$>CCX(#(*+Z)./(+/([(<@RFRN@N?
W+.C.*#(#)&*%O&C$2%A%T\+()"%P#$(.'1%.6%&%M+I*+)(+-%!'+/-%#/%7&'(.I'&C"1
K-.&'-.%].'#&&
&
%^&)B*(1%.6%G.*#(#)&*%T)#+/)+Q%4/#5+'$#(_%`8&%T&C#+/a&bQ%H.>+Q%J(&*1
!.%)#(+%("#$%A'(#)*+%].'#&Q%K-.&'-.c;??de%fW+.C.*#(#)&*%O&C$2%A%T\+()"%P#$(.'1%.6%&%M+I*+)(+-%!'+/-%#/%7&'(.I'&C"1fQ
W+.C.*#(#)$Q%@R2%;Q%;<d%g%R?d
!.%*#/\%(.%("#$%A'(#)*+2%=:J2%@?Y@?d?X@EFN??E?d?@DD@N;;
4H82%"((C2XX-hY-.#Y.'IX@?Y@?d?X@EFN??E?d?@DD@N;;
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Geopolitics, 13:278–308, 2008
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1465-0045 print / 1557-3028 online
DOI: 10.1080/14650040801991522
Geopolitics, Vol. 13, No. 2, Mar 2008: pp. 0–0
1557-3028
1465-0045
FGEO
Geopolitics
Geopolitical
Edoardo
Boria
Maps
Geopolitical Maps: A Sketch History
of a Neglected Trend in Cartography
EDOARDO BORIA
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Faculty of Political Science, Università “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy
Between the two world wars a new strain of cartography emerged
in Europe, which disregarded the standards of precision of traditional geodesic, or scientific, cartography. Its scope was strictly
political and its approach openly ideological. In Germany, cradle
of this new genre, it was called ‘geopolitische kartographie’ or
‘suggestive kartographie’. These terms were later borrowed from the
languages of other countries where the allure of German cartography was felt. Elsewhere, in Great Britain and the United States,
these maps were generally termed propaganda maps or persuasive
maps.
Despite a recent rise in studies on global geopolitics during
Fascism and Nazism, little attention has been devoted to the cartographic innovations of the time. Studies that have touched on this
topic, mostly monographic papers, do not allow for an evaluation
of possible links between earlier and later cartographic developments, or between developments occurring in different countries.
This approach, which separates the phenomenon from its historical context, gives the impression that geopolitical cartography
between the two world wars appeared, like a comet, out of
nowhere and then simply vanished; that it was an isolated
phenomenon with neither precursors nor successors.
Following World War II, geopolitical cartography was largely
abandoned, presumably for the same reasons that had discredited
geopolitical publications in general during the period in question:
(1) the genre was considered a direct product of the propaganda
machine of the dictatorial regimes; (2) it lacked scientific basis
(on a par with traditional cartography); (3) it had no practical
use, other than as a tool of propaganda.
Address correspondence to Edoardo Boria, Università La Sapienza, Faculty of Political
Science, Rome, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
278
Geopolitical Maps
279
This paper intends to refute these three assumptions and to shed
some light on this remarkable cartographical phenomenon. What
were the origins of this new way of representing space? Who used it
and why?
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
INTRODUCTION
The map is not just a tool for the advancement of knowledge, but also a
possible weapon of propaganda. Only recently, though, with the studies of
John Brian Harley, has the close link between cartography and the interests
of the power elites clearly emerged. Indeed, despite ample evidence attesting to the obvious limitations of cartography, geography as a science has
long avoided dealing with the consequences of this state of affairs. Nineteenth-century geography, espousing the positivistic premises of determinism with regard to the existence of laws governing nature and human
behaviour, believed in objective knowledge, and thus considered the map a
faithful representation of the land. Later came possibilism, which was
inspired by ideas partly antithetical to those of determinism, but was nonetheless led (by its idiographic approach) to similar conclusions regarding
the meaning to be attributed to the geographical map – an essentially
neutral descriptive instrument. The advent of functionalism did not change
this basic concept. The use of quantitative techniques in a neo-positivist
philosophical context, the use of calculators and satellite data collection
technologies, the emphasis on the accuracy of measurements – all of these
enhanced the technical aspects of cartography, but did not affect the theoretical reflection on the meaning of the map, which was still being evaluated based on technical precision.
Hence, despite continuous developments in theoretical geography,
embodied in a succession of schools and approaches that renewed and
invigorated the discipline, the perception of the geographical map as a neutral instrument representing reality has remained unchanged for more than a
century. Only recently have stimulating, alternative views been put forward:
from perception geography, focusing on the individual sphere, to the critical analysis of postmodern radical geographers. Among the latter, in the
field of cartography, John Brian Harley, authentic “father” of the school of
critical cartography, stands out with his extremely efficacious analysis of the
map as a product of power.
These conceptual innovations are still fresh however, so that much
work remains to be done on the subjective nature of maps – its causes and
implications. Yet, two things clearly emerge: first, that since all maps are
intrinsically subjective and persuasive, it follows that propaganda through
maps and atlases cannot be considered the invention of Nazism or Fascism;
and second, that the devices used to make propaganda are manifold:
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
280
Edoardo Boria
distorting information, emphasising one topic, choosing place-names,
colours, titles and captions, excessive highlighting of certain elements, etc.
This paper will address some innovations pertaining to method, which
appeared in Germany and Italy in the 1920s and 1930s. It should be noted
however, that these innovations coexisted with the aforementioned techniques of cartographic propaganda, but did not supplant them. For example,
the practice of focusing on a specific issue, such as ethnicity: The presence
of millions of Germans living outside the Reich was repeatedly evoked during the Nazi period and used to legitimise any action, including military
action, to redress such “injustice”. One of the most widely used German
school atlases of the time,1 for example, obviously engages in propaganda
when dedicating a section to the “nationalist revolution”.2 But it is not the
maps themselves that are the culprits here; the maps are in fact scientifically
acceptable, factually correct: there are legends and scales, the borders of the
Reich are marked correctly, and the events illustrated are real: the Führer’s
travels, the results of the elections, assassinations of members of the Nazi
party, Jewish migrations. It is the choice of subjects that is biased, not the
maps themselves.
Obviously, the creation of a biased narrative through the compilation
of an atlas is independent of political leaning. An example in point, from
the same period, is the atlas by the Hungarian Marxist geographer Alex
Radó.3 Here too, the maps do not seem partial in and of themselves. It is the
choice of topics that gives the atlas its ideological slant (e.g., the scramble
for raw materials between capitalistic world powers, the universality of
communist brotherhood).
WHAT WE MEAN BY GEOPOLITICAL CARTOGRAPHY
Setting aside the classical tactics used to instrumentalise maps, we will
instead focus on the innovations in “graphical language” introduced in
the 1920s in so called “geopolitical maps”. These maps represent a
genuine leap forward, an added sophistication in cartographic communication techniques. Indeed, these new maps are not limited to showing
places, theatres of historical events or the distribution of geographical
objects. Instead, they openly aim to illustrate existing or potential balances of power in a particular region. In other words, while traditional
cartography presents few political elements (e.g., borders, capitals) and
portrays a static political situation, a geopolitical map renders the picture
dynamic, showing the historical causes of a given political situation,
possible future developments thereof, or both. Obviously, such interpretation is bound to be subjective. The intent is not merely descriptive, but
rather interpretive, inevitably leading the author to express subjective
value judgements.
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
281
In terms of content, a geopolitical map tends to correlate a multitude of
phenomena (political, economic, cultural, social, demographic, religious,
historical, ethnic, technological, etc.) and factors (space, distance, time, relative position, etc.). These maps take into consideration opposing political
and economic interests and spell them out to the reader through highly simplified, stylised cartographic drawings aimed at conveying a specific point
of view with regard to the represented situation or phenomenon. Such
point of view is clearly not inherent to the phenomenon in question, but
rather the product of the author’s interpretation.
For this purpose a new set of specially designed graphic symbols was
created. Geopolitical maps in fact differ from traditional political maps in
that they use geometric shapes to represent factors affecting the organisation of political space: arrows to indicate territorial conquest or commercial
penetration, axes for alliance systems, circles or half-circles for spheres of
influence, parallel lines to mark equivalent or reciprocal tendencies, broken
lines for uncertainty, radial and linear structures, interrupted lines as a sign
of disintegration, stars and diamonds to indicate the hubs of political forces
in action, as well as borders and shadings in abundance – all are graphic
solutions typical of geopolitical cartography. The geopolitical map in Figure 1
is an emblematic example.
Stylised and simplified, such maps are designed to be accessible to the
public at large. They are intended to be read and understood by a very
wide range of readers, including many who are unfamiliar with traditional
geographical maps. Unlike geodesic cartography, based on rigorous scientific
FIGURE 1 Mario Morandi’s map “L’equilibrio politico mediterraneo” (Political Equilibrium in
the Mediterranean).
Source: Geopolitica 10 (31 Oct. 1939) p. 523.
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
282
Edoardo Boria
assumptions and sophisticated techniques, these maps are clear and easy to
relate to. Their message is presented in a very effective fashion.
A geopolitical map must indeed prove unambiguous. To reach this
objective, it must limit itself to few, simple graphic signs, as a busy map
would risk confusing readers. At the same time, it should be appealing,
attract the reader, and this requires special attention to aesthetic considerations. An effective use of arrows, arches and lines, coupled with a powerful interpretation of the political situation converts the arid, rigid traditional
map into a readily understood, rich and dynamic map, conveying a specific
point of view.
Ideally, the ultimate purpose would be to create a model, that is, to
come up with a general order, to illustrate some recurrent, underlying
geopolitical dynamics. The basic idea of creating such a map is in fact to
show a general spatial tendency, a geographical law. This is surely a crude
simplification of complex phenomena which, by nature, can hardly be
attributed to clear-cut trends; an attitude which is thus, at its core, decidedly
deterministic.
Obviously, to evaluate this kind of cartography we must use a different
yardstick from that used for traditional maps. The usefulness of a geopolitical map is not to be gauged by technical standards such as cartographic
precision but by communicative effectiveness. To use Jacques Bertin’s apt
words in his first scientific treatise on cartographic visualisation,4 when it
comes to these kinds of maps – or “simplified images” – what matters is the
“cartographic message”. Inevitably then, due to its inherent subjectivity in
the analysis of the political equilibrium and its openly persuasive character,
geopolitical cartography tends to lend itself to propaganda. Indeed, the
dividing line between geopolitical cartography and propaganda cartography
is difficult, if not impossible, to trace. Bearing this premise in mind, which
we shall discuss later on, we will now turn to analyse and then compare
geopolitical cartography in Germany and Italy between the two world wars.
GEOPOLITICAL CARTOGRAPHY IN GERMANY
As noted, attempts at developing innovative ways of representing political
order appeared in Germany as early as the 1920s. Contemporary scholars
have clearly shown5 that efforts to hone the persuasive potential of geographical maps began in Germany long before the rise of National Socialism
to power. Geopoliticians of the time published papers on the subject;6 later,
others attempted to build a general theoretical framework for geopolitical
cartography (an excerpt from the classification of symbols appropriate for
geopolitical representation can be found in Figure 2).7
So much interest was not coincidental. An increasing tendency toward
practical application in geopolitics created a need for representational tools
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
283
FIGURE 2 “Grundsignaturen” (Basic Symbols).
Source: R. von Schumacher, ‘Zur Theorie der geopolitischen Signatur’, in
Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 12/4 (1935) p. 256.
both for the analysis itself and – above all – for the publication of its
results. Geopolitical cartography, therefore, satisfied a need to communicate geopolitics in new contexts, outside university classrooms. This need
arose partly because geopolitics – accused of lacking scientific rigour –
was not looked upon very favourably in the academic milieu, and partly
from the natural tendency of geopolitics toward activism and the translation of theory into action. We do not know the extent to which Haushofer
and other German geopoliticians were in fact aware of this need. We do
know however, that within a few years German geopolitics equipped
itself with an utterly innovative tool of representation, able to convey its
message effectively to a public comprising both experts and non-experts.
This kind of cartography proved itself useful in rendering clear and
accessible to the general public a specific point of view or idea of the
political space. This is the basis of its manifold applications and hence
also its success.
Before delving into the analysis of these maps, however, we should
point out a few, earlier experiments, which seem to have blazed a trail for
geopolitical cartography. These first attempts at using geometrical shapes
in maps probably inspired the specific technical solutions applied to
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
284
Edoardo Boria
German geopolitical cartography in the 1920s and 30s. In the Geographischer
Repetitions- und Zeichen-Atlas, published in 1888 by the artillery cadet
school in Vienna,8 Captain Emil Letoschek produces dozens of very original stylised representations of European states, transformed here into simple geometrical shapes. This was a sort of blank atlas, a genre widely used
for teaching purposes in Europe at the time. Freehand drawing of geographical maps was recognised as a useful exercise to help students familiarise themselves with the shapes of states and other geographical
entities.9
The difference between these attempts and what may be defined as
geopolitical cartography is the level of politicisation of the representation.
Geopolitical representations are openly dominated by political-ideological
bias. The message of the map is directly linked to a specific idea of space
and is clearly intended to prompt the reader to concur. In contrast, the
sole purpose of Letoschek’s maps is to teach geography. No ulterior
motives are involved. One map is a teaching aid, the other – a political
weapon.
Compared to similar didactic atlases however, Letoschek did introduce
two very original innovations: (1) An effort to consider large geographical
areas. Indeed, his atlas includes many small-scale maps able to include vast
portions of the planet; (2) An attempt to propose an alternative to the
strictly Cartesian representation adopted by traditional, scientific cartography. This was done through the substitution of geographical elements with
geometrical shapes. These two special traits are clearly visible in the stylised
map of the European continent in Figure 3 (see for example the triangle
representing Great Britain).
A new edition of the atlas was published in 1906.10 In this edition the
author, now a Lieutenant Colonel, takes the geometric abstraction yet a step
further, turning the geographical shapes into silhouettes only vaguely reminiscent of the actual form of the territory. As the introduction to the atlas
suggests, Letoschek’s sole intention was to help his students memorise
Europe’s political geography. Yet, conceivably, his assignments were
extremely useful to the German geopoliticians of the 1920s, in that they
cleared the maps of all that “superfluous” information which could now be
replaced by a useful set of symbols to induce the desired psychological
effect. Away then, with names of states (borders are sufficient to allow the
reader to recognise them!) and useless lettering; away with almost all orographic data (it is less important in the context of international politics);
away with the precise outlines of coasts, lakes and rivers; and – ultimately –
away with legends. After all, the map should be able to speak for itself. One
must make room for arrows, circles, half-circles, lines, etc. It is likely that
Letoschek’s assignments constituted an excellent starting point for those
who, shortly after the First World War, produced the first rudimentary geopolitical maps.
285
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
FIGURE 3 Emil Letoschek’s map “Europa”, Geographischer Repetitions- und Zeichen-Atlas.
Source: Europa (Vienna: Im selbstverlage der Verfassers, k.k. Artillerie-Cadeten-Schule, Arsenal.
Für den Buchhandel in Commission bei Ed. Hölzel 1888) p. 1.
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
286
Edoardo Boria
An exhaustive account of the history of German geopolitical cartography in the 1920s and 1930s is well beyond the scope of the present article.
Readers interested in delving further into the subject may refer to various
existing studies, in particular to Herb’s in-depth study.11 Here we will limit
ourselves to a brief comment on a few instances of geopolitical cartography
from that period which, for more than twenty years starting in 1921,12 provided the German people with a cartography that was basic, namely one
that comprised few elements, and was readily understood.
This new type of cartographic representation was largely free of direct
ties with the National Socialist movement, even though many geopolitical
cartographers sympathised with the extreme right.
Geopolitical cartography was immediately successful, partly because its
propagandistic force found fertile ground in Germany, and partly because
Germans loved maps and made habitual use of them, thanks to worthy cartographers and high-level cartographic institutes – as conceded at the time,
even by Germany’s enemies.13 Moreover, geopolitical cartography could
count on the support of powerful and authoritative figures. First among
them was the leader of the school of Geopolitik, Karl Haushofer, who, as
editor of Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, was able to allocate space for this genre
in his famous journal, both for theoretical discussion and for its practical
application. Papers and geopolitical maps, proliferated in fact in the years
that followed.14
By the end of the 1920s, thanks to the popularity of Haushofer’s journal
(reaching the sizeable print run of 5,000 copies), the term geopolitische karte
(geopolitical map) had entered not only professional parlance but also the
speech of the public at large. It was immediately recognised as a distinct
cartographic genre, independent from scientific cartography, which
remained intent on the meticulous representation of the Earth’s surface.15
Geopolitical cartography, by contrast, took on the task of accounting for the
dynamic and mutable nature of cultural, economic and political phenomena, a task considered important not only for lay publications but for scientific purposes as well, and was thus fully justified in developing a specific
graphical language suitable to its needs.
From the late 1920s onward, the genre would gain momentum and
diversify, appearing in periodicals, atlases and books (Figure 4).16 Most
noteworthy was the contribution of atlases – publications entirely dedicated
to the new genre. The first was Geopolitischer Geschichtsatlas, authored by
Braun and Ziegfeld.17 Then, in 1929, a first attempt at classifying and standardising a cartographic set of symbols for geopolitical use was made at the
celebrated Perthes publishing house. The resulting atlas – Geopolitischer
Typen-Atlas – authored by Hermann Haack and Max Georg Schmidt,
includes no less than 176 “kartenskizzen”. In the years that followed, more
geopolitical atlases were published, increasingly politicised and distinct
from traditional atlases.18
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
287
FIGURE 4 Rudolf Heinisch’s map “Drei Imperien – Ein Meer” (Three Empires – One Sea).
Source: W. Pahl, Das politische Antlitz der Erde. Ein weltpolitischer Atlas (Leipzig: Wilhelm
Goldmann Verlag 1939) p. 82.
GEOPOLITICAL CARTOGRAPHY IN ITALY
Once geopolitical cartography had already established itself in Germany,
which published large quantities of maps and atlases and made them
widely available to the general public, attempts at adopting this cartographic genre were made in other countries – Spain,19 Portugal20 and above
all Italy, where this industry, although less prolific than in Germany, was
certainly noteworthy.
We shall devote more attention to Italian geopolitical cartography than
we have to its German counterpart, because to date, studies outlining its
history have been lacking. Only a few, brief remarks have appeared in studies dedicated to fascist geopolitics in general. We have chosen an early
point of departure – the final years of the nineteenth century – to afford a
better understanding of the reasons that led Italian geopolitical cartographers to follow German models, with a few important exceptions, which
we shall discuss.
For decades, since the days of Ratzel, Italian geography had been influenced by its German counterpart. Italian geographers had been emulating
their German colleagues in their studies, more than their French or AngloSaxon peers. This, in fact, reflected a more general tendency among Italian
scholars to be inspired by the positivistic trends of the German world.
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
288
Edoardo Boria
But it was not only the allure of the German positivist mood, or the
technical prowess of German cartographers that led Italian geographers to
adhere to the German model. The fact is, that Ratzelian determinism, with
its expansionist and interventionist implications, resonated with the nationalistic ferment among the élites of the young Italian state. The national interests that geography would have to serve were rather clear: colonial
aspirations in Africa, claims over the Eastern Alpine regions, Istria and
Dalmatia, and the consolidation of the centralised state.
Yet, at the beginning of the twentieth century the Italian cartography
sector was still lagging behind. For this reason, foreign maps (mostly of
German manufacture) had to be imported, and the distribution of such
products to the general public was limited. Gradually the situation
improved, with the advent (in the 1910s) of a local, technically advanced
cartography. These developments, combined with historical circumstances,
contributed to an intensification of nationalistic manifestations in cartography. Surely, the combination of these two factors – the spread of local
cartography and the rise in chauvinistic attitudes – facilitated the birth of
Italian geopolitical cartography, but it also conditioned its development.
To understand the atmosphere surrounding the relations between
geography and political power in Italy, it is important to bear in mind that
attempts on the part of the Fascist Party to influence Italian academic geography did not meet with significant resistance. The reason was not so much
that geographers opportunistically and unconditionally submitted to the will
of the regime, but rather that Ratzelian determinism, the dominant orientation in Italian geographic circles, naturally converged with the regime’s
basic inclinations. As noted above, atlases and geographical publications
were already rife with nationalism and colonialism before World War I.
It would thus be a mistake to ascribe the atmosphere of passionate
patriotism entirely to Italy’s new political path. Recent historical events,
from the unification of Italy to irredentism, had undoubtedly fostered sentiments which now, with the Fascists in power, were being further promoted.
The development of political geography in Italy clearly attests to this
concurrence of world views between geographers and the Fascist regime.
The existing patriotic and interventionist inclinations of the former would
progressively gain ground with the consolidation of the latter – a regime
sharing the very same ambitions. It was precisely during the Fascist period
that political geography, the precursor of geopolitics, was born as an
independent branch of geography. The first manual of political geography,
published in Italy in 1929 and authored by Luigi De Marchi, plainly reflects
these ethnocentric and deterministic views. The same is true of later writings by his student Antonio Renato Toniolo, by Giorgio Roletto, the school’s
leading exponent, and by the younger geographers Umberto Toschi and
Ernesto Massi. This increasingly abundant production of scientific texts and
papers was accompanied by a popularisation of the discipline, that is, by
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
289
the advent of geographic publications destined for the general public, and
characterised by widely accessible communication techniques. And so it
was in this context, that a few years following its debut in Germany, popular geopolitical cartography made its first appearance in Italy.
Yet, geopolitical cartography would truly thrive only a few years later,
with the first, albeit somewhat hesitant, attempts at its integration within
the theoretical framework of scientific geography. Umberto Toschi21 was
the first to acknowledge the existence of a new trend in cartography,
albeit with some reservations. Toschi addressed only maps published in
Geopolitica, organ of a narrow circle of openly fascist geographers. We
will begin our discussion with this group of people, bearing in mind however that they were not the only ones to experiment with innovative forms
of dynamic cartography. Unencumbered by the influence of German geopolitics, one small but determined Italian publisher devised a new, independent cartographic style. This style, free of the excesses characteristic of
the maps produced by fascist geopoliticians, would succeed in establishing itself after the war, emerging as the true novelty introduced by Italy in
the sphere of cartographic representations of political events. The publisher in question was Federico De Agostini, and his publishing house at
the time was called Italgeo. De Agostini’s work will be discussed further
below.
As noted however, the maps produced by Geopolitica – the journal
published between January of 1939 and December of 1942 – were the first
and best-known geopolitical maps in Italy. The journal was based in Trieste,
symbol of Italian nationalism and irredentism. The city had been annexed to
Italy a number of years earlier (it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire until 1919), redeeming Italian national pride and rousing those
whose dream it was to see Italy in the role of world power. Giorgio Roletto
and Ernesto Massi, managing editors of Geopolitica, were relatively new
members of the teaching staff, and were not in line with the academic
establishment of their discipline – geography. The former had followed an
atypical professional path. After many years as teacher in a technicalcommercial school he joined the academic world, but initially taught history
of economics rather than geography. Massi was still very young and needed
to make a place for himself. It is also emblematic that the journal was
backed by Giuseppe Bottai, Minister of National Education – a fascist who
had often been critical of the regime, and was certainly not liked by Mussolini.
He was the one who found a publisher, guaranteed many subscriptions by
educational institutions and suggested a joint subscription arrangement with
the periodical Critica fascista.22
The few facts thus far mentioned suffice to demonstrate that Italian
geopolitics developed against a backdrop of significantly more complicated
and conflictual relationships, both with the political environment and with
the academic world, than has long been supposed.23
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
290
Edoardo Boria
Geopolitica was distinctly popular in nature – rendered accessible to the
general public. Its maps, for the most part drawn by Mario Morandi, were
crucial in allowing a simple presentation of geopolitical phenomena. It should
be noted that Geopolitica made ample use of maps and cartograms, much
more so than the Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, making the most of the graphical
language of geography. Suffice it to say that that the journal dedicated two
specific sections (“geopolitical analyses” and “geohistorical analyses”) to
Morandi’s large-format, double-page drawings alone.24 In addition, dozens
of other maps accompanied the various articles. Morandi was the driving
force behind the journal’s cartography, designed from the start to capitalise
on graphic representations.
Further evidence of such intent is found in a special section launched
by the journal – Cartographic Review – dedicated to the review of newly
published cartographic products. For this important section, the contribution of an eminent cartographer was required: Luigi Visintin. Evidently, this
experiment did not yield the expected results, seeing that this traditional
approach to the geographical map was soon abandoned even as Mario
Morandi and his new cartography were gaining ever more space and
legitimacy.
Morandi was also a member of the editorial board of Critica fascista,
probably brought in by Ernesto Massi who also worked for that periodical,
which – like Geopolitica – was founded by Bottai. The cartography for
Geopolitica was prepared by Morandi and by Dante Lunder, who also
worked with the University of Trieste, was a journalist of the local daily Il
piccolo, and was among the founders of the Istituto di Cultura Fascista
(Institute of Fascist Culture) youth division in Trieste. Until May of 1941,
both appear as editor-cartographers. From then on, Morandi is promoted
and becomes the sole editor of the periodical. It is probably thanks to his
maps that he gained such prominence. In this context it is worth mentioning that it was Morandi, in December of 1941, who hosted a meeting at the
Milan offices of Critica fascista between a number of contributors to the
paper and delegates of Gioventù Universitaria Fascista di Milano (Milan’s
University Fascist Youth). From that moment on – in view of the growing
estrangement of Roletto,25 and the absence of Massi, who volunteered to
serve with the Bersaglieri corps – Morandi would become the true protagonist of Geopolitica.
Morandi managed to create maps which were utterly original in the
Italian context, and in complete harmony with fascist geopolitics. They
number a few hundred in total, between Geopolitica, a number of monographs,26 and contributions to various publications.27 His work is very interesting in that it reflects the spatial view underlying the foreign policy of a
medium-sized power, as was fascist Italy. The stylised shapes of the states
and numerous geometric signs found in Morandi’s maps, reveal a clear
interpretation of world politics, differentiating friends from foes and central
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
291
from marginal areas, displaying interests, ambitions, and causes underlying
tensions and alliances – all that which remains invisible in a traditional
scientific map.
Geopolitics was thus in vogue in Italy in the late 1930s, and its success
owed much to the maps accompanying publications on the subject. It
would be a little longer however, before an atlas entirely based on the postulates of geopolitical cartography would be published. The first to put out
such an atlas was Italgeo. In November of 1942, Italgeo published Itinera.
Atlante storico commentato ad uso delle scuole medie superiori (Itinera. An
Annotated Historical Atlas for Secondary Schools). For the first time in Italy,
an atlas offers a comprehensive reading of history as it unfolds, expressed
through a set of specially designed graphic devices. This product is strikingly different from the maps published in Geopolitica, and the differences
are significant. There are technical differences (symbols used, colours), as
well as differences in format (an atlas, rather than maps accompanying
articles) and in target population (school children rather than adult aficionados).
The method however, is the same. As the authors of the atlas, geographer
Giuseppe Mori and publisher Federico De Agostini, state in the preface,
The concepts inspiring this work are . . . simplicity . . . and (and this is
perhaps the most original idea) dynamism – [The atlas aspires to] convey
a sense of change, of the perpetual progression of history, minimizing
the impression of stillness which seemed so irredeemably linked to any
transmitting historical concepts through geographical means.
The result, for the first time in an Italian atlas, was the introduction of
concepts taken from classical geopolitics. Terms such as lines of resistance
and centres of expansion or radiation, are clearly mentioned in the preface.
The first booklet was dedicated to the Middle Ages, but the completion
of the series would have to await the post-war years. The war had evidently
interrupted a project which was not only innovative but also extensive and
ambitious in scope. In 1946 two more booklets appeared – Antiquity, and
the Modern Era, but no booklet was published to cover more recent historical events, probably to avoid having to deal with the thorny task of describing those turbulent times.
The approach of this atlas was so original that it survived the war. In fact,
atlases of this kind were offered to the public by two publishers after the conflict: Italgeo, with the series Via Maestra. Atlante storico per la scuola media
(Via Maestra. A Historical Atlas for Middle Schools), and the long-standing
Florentine publishing house Le Monnier, which was just entering the field of
geographic publishing at the time, with textbooks and atlases relying precisely on these maps, which it subsequently republished many times.
The merit of the new approach is confirmed by the following example:
while other Italian atlases of the 1950s continued to show the traditional
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
292
Edoardo Boria
FIGURE 5 Map by Cartografia Prof. G. De Agostini “Il secondo dopoguerra del XX secolo”
(The second postwar period of the XX century).
Source: G. Mori, Atlante Storico Didattico Le Monnier per le Scuole Medie Superiori (Florence:
Le Monnier 1957) p. 33.
map of the world, illustrating the countries and their borders, the atlases
published by Le Monnier in the early 1950s – Atlante storico didattico per le
scuole medie superiori (Didactic Historical Atlas for Secondary Schools) and
Orizzonti. Atlante storico commentato ad uso delle scuole secondarie
(Orizzonti. An Annotated Historical Atlas for Secondary Schools) – were the
first in Italy to clearly show maps of the antagonism between the United
States and the Soviet Union, which would characterise the international
political scene for decades to come (Figure 5).
GERMAN AND ITALIAN GEOPOLITICAL
CARTOGRAPHIES COMPARED
The fact that geopolitical cartography evolved in two countries that were, at
the time, under authoritarian regimes, is plain to see. Less successful, but
nevertheless important efforts took place in Spain and Portugal, countries
with similar political situations. Conversely, no such phenomenon was
observed during the period in question in democratic France, Great Britain
or the United States, despite well-established cartographic traditions, and a
widespread circulation of maps among the general public. This raises many
questions, starting with the relationship between those who produce
Geopolitical Maps
293
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
cartography and totalitarian regimes. That is, whether and to what extent
geopolitical cartography was directly produced by the regime; commissioned by the regime; the fruit of indirect pressures; or, alternatively, the
result of the cartographer’s or the publisher’s own convictions coinciding
with the objectives of the regime.
This line of research may lead us to reflect on the intrinsic nature of
geopolitical cartography, its propagandistic use, and its adaptability to democratic contexts. The following pages aim to offer a modest starting point
for a reflection on these issues. We will begin with a comparison between
German and Italian geopolitical cartographies, a comparison which has,
thus far, yielded many common features (Table 1).
Continuity of Themes with Earlier Cartography
When analysing the relationship between cartography and the Nazi or
Fascist regimes we should begin with a basic observation: the emphasis of
propagandistic tones and the intensification of plainly patriotic representations precedes, rather than follows, the rise of the extreme right and its
totalitarian grip. The same is true of Portugal, where the “colonial discourse
had been hegemonic even before 1926”.28 The German case is particularly
emblematic. Both in his book29 and in a small article fittingly entitled
“Before the Nazis”,30 Herb provides ample evidence that significant changes
in maps and atlases can be traced back to the years 1926–1927 – long
TABLE 1 Characteristics common to German and Italian geopolitical cartography
Context of initial development:
– Emerged in eccentric academic circles and largely opened itself to cooperation with
non-academics
– Met with coldness on the part of a conservative academic milieu
Thematic continuity with the past:
– Preference for themes that were already widely present in maps of the recent past
(ethnic issues, the Treaty of Versailles, Mare nostrum)
Technical solutions:
– Few elements of information overall
– Use of symbols expressing dynamism
– Extensive generalisation, use of geometric forms
Target population:
– Appeal to a broad lay readership
Publishing landscape:
– Crucial role played by small, private-sector publishers
– Few, very prolific, specialised cartographers
Relations with political power:
– The regime does not make deliberate use of cartography – directly or indirectly – as an
instrument of propaganda. Thus:
– Authors and publishers enjoy considerable independence.
– The sector is not centralised.
– Official institutions very rarely commission projects from geopolitical cartographers.
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
294
Edoardo Boria
before the rise of National Socialism to power. Similarly, in Italy, signs of
sympathy for nationalistic topics were very common in atlases published
before the advent of Fascism, as attested by the abundance of maps pertaining to Ancient Rome and the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum, Italians
abroad, Italian colonies and recent territorial conquests.
When, in 1939, Bottai, as Minister of National Education, decided to
launch an extensive reform of the school system with the objective of reinforcing fascist education, many of the maps and geography textbooks in use
had already been changed. The ministerial measures had been implemented
voluntarily, and in advance.31
A correct reconstruction of these events, with special attention to the
sequence of time, offers valuable food for thought not only with regard to
the relationship between cartography and political power, but also to the
relationship between cartography and society in general – topics which
geographical research has only recently begun to explore in an adequate
manner.
Both under Nazism and under Fascism, the element of local culture is
hardly distinguishable from the instrumental component, linked to the
expansionist aims of the two regimes. For example, the issue of the Mediterranean in Italy was nurtured by authoritative non-fascist historians (e.g.,
Pietro Silva) long before Fascism appropriated it and consolidated the myth
of the Mare Nostrum. The same can be said of ethnic and “Mitteleuropean”
cultural emphases in Germany: recurrent themes in maps and atlases before
the rise of Nazism to power, and certainly not a monopoly of the extreme
right.
The continuity with the past is no news. It is in fact known that the
movements of the extreme right rode on a wave of sentiments that were
already prevalent in large portions of the population. In our field of
research we can confirm these conclusions and thus refute the idea that it
was exclusively the advent of these two regimes which brought about the
emphasis on certain themes in the atlases. Nationalism, irredentism and
expansionism were indeed existing and widespread inclinations in maps
and atlases of the preceding period, which the movements of the extreme
right needed only to indulge. Studied in its wider historical context, the cartography of the Fascist and Nazi periods presents strong elements of continuity with previously published cartography. It would thus seem more
appropriate in this case to speak of instrumentalised, rather than imposed,
cartographic knowledge.
Coldness on the Part of the Academic Establishment
The relationship between the advocates of geopolitics and the milieu of
traditional academic geography has never been rosy – not initially and not
ever. The initiatives of geopoliticians failed to obtain significant support
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
295
from the leaders of academic geography. They received neither official recognition, nor direct involvement. With the passage of time and the increasing politicisation of the goals and focus of geopolitics, the prevailing
attitude among the leaders of academic geography became progressively
more distanced, despite a façade of acceptance. The academic establishment tended to consider geopoliticians as good as planted agents of the
regime, potentially capable of undermining academic freedom, intent on
corrupting the noble and distinguished tradition of the discipline. The gap
(in terms of views, approach, methods) and the misunderstandings separating the leading geographers of the time and the two founders of geopolitics
in Germany and in Italy, respectively Karl Haushofer and Giorgio Roletto,
are both rooted and reflected in the anomalous academic careers of these
geographers, who started their academic teaching late, and were never fully
accepted by the academic milieu.
If we analyse the make-up of the groups working on the two most
representative geopolitical journals – the Zeitschrift für Geopolitik and
Geopolitica – we see that these were comprised mostly of non-geographers
(historians, anthropologists, political scientists, etc.), with the considerable
participation of non-professionals, such as journalists and politicians. This was
only partly a free choice. For the most part, it was due to specific constraints.
On the one hand, the interdisciplinary scope of geopolitics demanded that it
be open to fields of interest beyond those traditionally addressed by academic
geography. On the other hand, the fact remains that academic geography was
suspicious of geopoliticians, accused them of discrediting geography, of twisting it and turning it into an instrument of propaganda.
The distrust of geopolitics obviously affected geopolitical cartography
as well, accused of amounting to mere political propaganda. In Italy,
Umberto Toschi’s reservations about the “new cartography” expressed in
the 1940 edition of his textbook, were repeated even more vehemently in
the post-war editions of the book.32
In Germany, Siegfried Passarge wrote in 1935: “Something altogether
different from scientific political geography are those popular science type
publications by modern geopoliticians”. While acknowledging it as useful in
allowing the public a better comprehension of political-geographic facts,
answering to a need felt by the people, he passionately declared that “the
geopolitical material published thus far is only minimally geographic.
Mainly, it is political in nature, and geographical facts are included in a
semi-scientific fashion”.33
In fact, the authors of geopolitical maps (Rössing, Morandi and Lunder
in Italy; Springenschmid, Jantzen, Schumacher, Ziegfeld, Lange, Gebhardt,
Jedermann, Heinisch, Pahl and others in Germany) did not come from the
traditional institutes that had made German cartography famous, and
allowed Italian cartography to thrive. They were self-taught individuals with
different backgrounds. The few authoritative cartographers mentioned
296
Edoardo Boria
above got involved in geopolitical cartography only by chance: Luigi Visintin in the aforementioned fleeting and inconclusive contribution to Geopolitica, and Hermann Haack in a co-authored atlas.
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Complex Relations with Political Power
It has long been accepted that those involved in the publication of geopolitical material during the Nazi and Fascist periods, had close ties with political
power, acted in a subordinate capacity to it, and were practically indistinguishable from it. Recent studies have proven these convictions inaccurate,
and exposed the prejudice that fuelled them for decades. The discrepancies
between Geopolitik and Nazi ideology, in both theoretical and practical
terms, have been demonstrated long ago.34 Haushofer’s opposition to the
attack against the Soviet Union, for which the scholar paid with isolation, is
but one emblematic example.
In evaluating the relationship between geopolitics and the regime it is
necessary to consider the dissenting positions repeatedly expressed by the
two leaders of the discipline, Karl Haushofer35 and Giorgio Roletto,36 tenacious defenders of a position which, they believed, gave science precedence over propaganda. Ideological identification does not necessarily
entail subordination to the regime.
An analogous argument may be made for geopolitical cartography during the same period. Likewise, it cannot be considered an offshoot of the
regime. In other words, the protagonists of geopolitical cartography – those
who created, published and distributed the material – did not constitute an
integral part of the regime. They were not part of its official apparatus. They
were not in a position to enjoy the total arbitrariness reserved only for
members of totalitarian centres of power. Neither the indirect financial support granted, nor the basic approval given to geopolitical cartography offers
any reason to deny the clear distinction between the regime and this milieu.
Moreover, it has been correctly pointed out that the regime clearly
underestimated the propagandistic potential of cartography, failed to understand it, was indifferent to it, and even seemed to mistrust it.37 On those rare
occasions where political power did take interest, the results were decidedly modest.38 In view of the renowned skill of these regimes in the use of
instruments of propaganda, this might appear surprising. Certainly, the mass
consensus they were able to obtain was largely a result of this very skill.
Yet, it should be clearly stated, that despite their expertise in the use of propaganda tools, the political leaderships, both Nazi and Fascist, took little
interest in popular geopolitical cartography. The near absence of geopolitical cartography in the publications of the Zentralverlag der NSDAP is
emblematic. Herb39 talks of the “reluctance of the Nazis to become the main
actor in cartographic propaganda”. Projects commissioned by official institutions of the regime from cartographers or publishing houses specialising in
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
297
geopolitical cartography were very limited and sporadic. In Germany, the
only significant instance is the “Stiftung Volk und Reich”.40 In Italy there is
no trace of regular ties with official institutions.
Evidence of direct interference on the part of political power aimed at
censoring or even influencing the content of geopolitical cartographic
products is rare and basically insignificant.41 What does emerge are cases of
voluntary adaptation to the new political atmosphere on the part of established cartographers. Such is the case of Paul Diercke, author (after his
father Carl) of a famous school atlas, who emphasises ethnic aspects in his
work, and drastically changes his maps to favour German communities.42
The general lack of interest in cartography as a means of propaganda is
further corroborated by the fact that neither of the two regimes took the
trouble to centralise the sector of cartography, as had been done for other
sectors of communication.43 The situation was similar in Portugal as well.44
This confirms a fact amply demonstrated by Harley,45 namely that
cartographic analysis tends to overestimate the ability of external forces
(e.g., in our case, Fascist and Nazi regimes) to influence cartography, while
at the same time underestimating the intrinsic power of cartography itself,
that is, the power of the map as a rhetorical tool.
In this context it should be pointed out that propaganda is defined as:
“The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting
the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause”
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). The definition
implies a deliberate and systematic action involving all stages of preparation
and dissemination of the propaganda material, carefully planned in every
detail to produce the required effect. Hence, the expression ‘state propaganda’, when referred to the Nazi or Fascist regimes, can be correctly used
only to denote material that was directly planned and executed by the
respective regimes. Instead, our analysis of geopolitical cartography
produced in Germany and in Italy in the 1920s and 1930s has shown that
the material in question was neither planned nor controlled directly by the
centres of power of these regimes. Consequently, even granted that geopolitical cartography could be defined as propaganda material, defining it state
propaganda would be incorrect.
Despite their scant interest in atlases and maps for mass distribution,
the Nazi and Fascist regimes did not altogether deny the propagandistic
value of maps. The point is, the kind of cartography that these regimes
appreciated was not the kind published in books or magazines, but rather
monumental cartography, fit for exhibitions and parades (scale models,
giant posters), where huge cartographic displays expressed the leaders’
greatness and megalomania.46 The most striking example is probably that of
the marble tablets permanently affixed to the outer wall of the Basilica of
Maxentius on Via dei Fori Imperiali in Rome (named Via dell’Impero at the
time). This was a monumental cartographic display comprising five large
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
298
Edoardo Boria
tablets, illustrating the expansion of Rome – a city celebrated by the regime
in search of links to a glorious past. The dimensions are considerable: the
first four tablets, dedicated to the Roman Empire, are nearly five square
metres in size. The fifth is larger still, and was added after the conquest of
Ethiopia to glorify the new Fascist Empire, heir of the ancient Roman
Empire.47 The tablets were used as backdrop for the frequent parades held
along that road. Unlike maps published in journals, this cartography served
as a stage for ritual. As for geopolitical maps, not only were they not greatly
appreciated by the regime, they were probably not even welcome. The
political leadership could not possibly like these maps, for reasons pertaining
to the nature of geopolitical cartography. A geopolitical map interpreting
current and future events has an inherently prescriptive value which is
unacceptable to a totalitarian regime, by nature arrogant and closed to outside
influences. Such interpretations may well be perceived as an intolerable interference, an instance of lèse majesté.
Considering the geopolitical cartography of that period solely as state
propaganda would therefore be less than accurate. The fact that it emerged
and evolved in the broad context of the complex and heterogeneous milieu of
the European right-wing movements of the 1920s should be acknowledged,
but this does not, in itself, justify labelling it ‘state propaganda’, considering
the indifference the Nazi and Fascist regimes showed in its regard.
But what could have induced this small group of cartographers to
knowingly put their talent at the service of such fatal and tragic ideas? What
could have brought them to have their maps convey blatantly brutal messages (see Jantzen’s antisemitic small atlas48)? In order to understand that,
we must follow the famous principle of historical analysis, according to
which every document – in our case the map – can be interpreted and evaluated if, and only if, framed in its proper political and social context. It is,
therefore, impossible to comprehend the phenomenon without framing
geopolitical cartography in the context of those societies, steeped in myth
and blind nationalist instinct, clouded by racism, wholly committed to an
idolatrous cult of personality and the state. These were societies in which
individual conscience, that of every individual (excluding the supreme
ruler), was eliminated, fused into that of the collective. In such societies,
drawing maps – just like writing books, planning cities or serving the state –
inevitably and unconsciously becomes a political mission. Everyone is a soldier, cartographers included.
The Decisive Contribution of the Private Sector
Indeed, a distinction should be made between two kinds of geopolitical cartography: that published by political organs (such as the Ufficio Propaganda
of the Partito Nazionale Fascista, or the Reichszentrale für Heimatdienst) on
the one hand, and that published by private publishers on the other.
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
299
As shown above,49 state cartography was very limited in volume, and decidedly less sophisticated, less effective. The contribution of the private sector
and the participation of independent scholars were therefore decisive for
the development of geopolitical cartography.
On the whole, the publishing landscape of geopolitical cartography in
Germany and Italy was similar. True, the number of publications was
smaller in Italy, but in both countries the small publishing house was the
leading player in this sector. The most representative among them were: in
Italy – Italgeo and Sperling & Kupfer (publisher of Geopolitica), and in
Germany – Vowinckel (publisher of Zeitschrift für Geopolitik), Goldmann,
Runge, Wunderlich and Knorr & Hirth.
As for the authors, despite reasonably large volumes of work –
especially in Germany – few cartographers specialised in geopolitical representations, partly due to the reluctance of the academic milieu and of the
large cartographic institutes, and partly due to the special skills required for
the job: interpretive as well as technical. It should come as no surprise that
the most accomplished author of geopolitical maps, Arnold Hillen Ziegfeld,
had experience in the field of commercial art, having attended courses in
Weimar.50
Here we find further support for our conclusion, that geopolitical cartography – long considered state propaganda – was not state cartography.
The private sector, despite a lack of leading exponents, despite the absence
of special support on the part of political power, was nonetheless independently able to give rise to a highly politicised cartographic genre. Private
cartography probably proved even more forceful than state propaganda, in
that it could be perceived as more autonomous and no less authoritative:
more autonomous, clearly, because formally detached from the regime, and
no less authoritative, because based on a priori impartial knowledge –
cartographic knowledge.
Innovations
German geopolitical cartography was more prolific, but less varied than its
Italian counterpart. This was due to the fact that, while in Germany, from
the very beginning, a kind of school had emerged, complete with a theoretical framework, standardisation of elements,51 accepted syntactic rules,52
leaders and disciples,53 in Italy the genre was nurtured in two noncommunicating, separate environments: that of the journal Geopolitica, and
that of the publisher Federico De Agostini. The first was clearly inspired by
the German school, whereas the second was left to his own devices, free to
follow the publisher’s individual initiative both in technical terms and in
terms of the interpretation of events.
As a result, German geopolitical maps, drawn by different followers of
the genre, tend to be very homogeneous: the same symbols, the same black
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
300
Edoardo Boria
and white tones, the same upper case fonts. Exceptions were rare: Karl
Springenschmid used a strange font, called Sütterlin, and Gisheler Wirsing
chose to use colour.54 But these were isolated cases that only confirm the
existence of a school of cartographic drawing to uphold the rules and the
general orientation.
By using the term ‘school’ to describe German geopolitical cartography
we do not wish to imply that there was a single leader or a single centre
(e.g., a publishing house, a cartographic institution). We do however, wish
to indicate the essentially uniform character of the maps, both in form and
in substance, with clear-cut messages and limited themes. In Italy, on the
other hand, the two groups differed considerably both in their technical
choices and the messages conveyed, a fact which clearly emerges from a
comparison of their respective material.
The cartography published in Geopolitica was evidently influenced
by the German model. Morandi himself was well versed in the work of
members of the German school. He cites Springenschmid, Schmidt and
Haack, and Pahl.55 The most manifest sign of recognition and admiration
is to be found in Oddo Girowitz’s section dedicated to the review of
geopolitical literature, bearing the telling title: “Searching through the
Current German Geopolitical Literature”. A review referring to one of
these publications reads, “Great care was taken in the preparation of the
accompanying cartographic material (let it serve as an example to our
authors and publishers!)”. 56
Of course, the cartography in Geopolitica displays a number of small
technical differences with respect to the German model (e.g., a larger variety of fonts). The fact remains however, that just as German geopolitical
theoreticians had strongly influenced those of Italian geopolitics, so too in
the field of geopolitical cartography, the experimental line traced in
Germany had been adopted in Italy.
The situation differed however, with regard to the group based at Federico De Agostini’s publishing house, Italgeo – the group coordinated by
Giuseppe Mori, with Bernard Rössing as head of cartography. Here we discern
no roots in previous experiences of geopolitical cartography, and we may
speak of truly innovative solutions. These solutions derive from the fact that,
unlike the German publishers active in the sector of geopolitical cartography,
Federico De Agostini was not a beginner in the field of publishing. He was
part of a publishing tradition started forty years earlier by his father Giovanni,
and mainly specialised in school textbooks and related material. The very
choice of producing an atlas designed especially for schools – i.e., for didactic
purposes rather than general propaganda – was a novelty with respect to the
German model of geopolitical cartography. This is a decisive step forward,
marking a point where this industry outstrips its German counterpart, for in
Germany there had been no attempts at applying the new methods of geopolitical cartography to school atlases. As noted above, the aim of Italgeo’s
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
301
cartography, too, was to create a dynamic representation illustrating the evolutionary character of political phenomena. The difference lies in the underlying
concept, not as plainly politicised as in the German material.
For example, the idea of producing a historical atlas, which – despite
covering a very extended time-span – nevertheless avoids dealing with the
present, would have been inconceivable for German cartographers, all
intent on exalting the Reich. In addition, the atlas published by Italgeo lacks
the fixation with ethnic integrity and the fatherland, typical of German
cartography and the core of the entire narration of every atlas. Free of these
biased and propagandistic elements, what this atlas still has in common
with German geopolitical cartography is the basic approach of accounting
for the spatial consequences of political events from a dynamic perspective.
Italgeo thus sets itself apart both from the geopolitical cartography of the
periodicals, as it avoids patent bias, and from scientific cartography, as it
avoids limiting itself to presenting a static picture of the politico-territorial
situation, and instead renders it dynamic as it makes an effort to explain the
phenomena and the links between them.
In conclusion, from the point of view of cartography as a medium, we
can say that while German geopolitical cartography, with its extreme simplifications, had taken the first step toward a widespread distribution of maps
to a large audience, Italian geopolitical cartography took matters a step
further in extending that audience to include schools.
History was to doom these cartographical experiments to failure, interrupting a process which was aberrant in its messages, but promising in its
innovative communication modes.
An extremely thought-provoking topic is that of the relationship
between geopolitical cartography of the 1920s and 1930s, which was nonconformist with regard to traditional scientific standards, and contemporaneous artistic currents, which were non-conformist with regard to traditional
artistic standards of the time. Such a connection undoubtedly exists. One
need only consider the centrality of dynamism within the Italian futurist
movement (see an example in Figure 6). Like futuristic artists, geopolitical
mapmakers embarked on an audacious process of stylistic and technical
experimentation, celebrating action, aggression and competition. An indepth analysis of this subject is unfortunately beyond the scope of this
paper. Still, this remains a stimulating topic, which the geographic literature
has, thus far, only rarely addressed.57
Similarly unexplored is the relationship between geopolitical cartography and the techniques of visual representation put forward in the 1920s and
1930s by the neo-positivist philosophers of the Vienna Circle, most notably
Otto Neurath. Here, too, there is no doubt that a relationship exists. This is
clearly identifiable not only in similar experiments in breaking down complex concepts into simpler components through the use of visual language,
but also in the intention to disseminate information to the masses (Figure 7).
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
302
Edoardo Boria
FIGURE 6 Giacomo Balla, Guerra (War), oil and collage on board, 1916.
FIGURE 7 A diagram excerpted from O. Neurath, Modern Man in the Making (New York
and London: Alfred A. Knopf 1939) p. 88.
Geopolitical Maps
303
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
CONCLUSIONS
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the expansion of the reading
public in Western countries – a phenomenon which had slowly begun in
the late nineteenth century – had become an established reality. The middle
classes, with their newly found aspirations and purchasing power, were
drawn closer and closer to culture, and thus also to books. In the cartographic sector, this phenomenon, along with the spread of offset and rotogravure printing processes, facilitated the insertion of maps on the pages of
magazines and other popular publications (daily newspapers, periodicals),
with far-reaching effects on modes of cartographic communication. Like
other sectors in the field of communication, the cartographic sector, already
motivated by technological innovations allowing mass production, was
further stimulated to seek readily accessible means of expression, able to
convey a clear message to a lay public.
In the language of the map, the most evident innovations resulting
from this effort were the stylised shapes and the new graphic devices aimed
at expressing the dynamic nature of political and economic events. The creation of the latter, in the mid-1920s, was a genuine victory. Up until then,
the symbolic language of political maps was strictly limited to the static representation of certain elements. Now, to this snap-shot type of cartographic
language, another was added – more similar to a motion picture. Political
cartography went from the “photo-map” to the “movie-map”. Politicogeographical actors (above all, states), were made to move on the stage and
interact with one another. For the first time, the reader could perceive their
motivating factors and underlying dynamism.
Yet, one should not be deceived by the simplicity of shapes and the
scarcity of information. This was not a lesser form of cartography, but rather
a cartography different from the traditional one. It was different in the
themes it tackled (political and economic events) and in the readers it
addressed (the general public). It was politicised and enjoyed very limited
scientific legitimation. For these reasons, it was first ignored, and then distrusted by the academic world. However, this process of cartographic popularisation, capable of opening this form of communication to hitherto
unexplored, novel perspectives should be reconsidered in a different light.
As noted above, two main characteristics set the geopolitical maps of
the 1920s and 1930s apart from previously published cartographic material:
explicit objectives, and a target population which included lay readers.
As far as the first characteristic is concerned, it is well known that all
maps, being instruments of intellectual appropriation of space, reflect a
goal, an intention, but this had never before been expressed in such a clear
and obvious fashion. Even colonial cartography – clearly intended to
redraw the political, economic and social borders and spaces of colonised
territories – never seemed so shamelessly explicit. Geopolitical maps were
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
304
Edoardo Boria
the first to openly and contextually portray the legacy of the past, the perception of the present and the aspirations for the future.
The second characteristic was that of addressing the general public.
Until then, maps were thought of as intended for the use of a restricted
group of people, namely those capable of promoting territorial policies and
strategies (members of government, the bureaucracy and the military). Now
the intention behind geopolitical maps was to mobilise popular support.
A comparison of later geopolitical maps with what was defined “the
most famous map in the geopolitical tradition”58 illustrates this well. In 1904,
Halford John Mackinder used the map in question (or better, the five maps
accompanying Mackinder’s paper, all of which were presumably presented
on that occasion) to illustrate the concept of “heartland” at the Royal Geographical Society. He addressed a select audience and used the map merely
as support for his oral lecture. The map was not especially original, neither
in technical terms, nor in terms of the way in which it was used. Surely, the
map worked, but it worked for an educated public in a quasi-institutional
context, and what’s more, was accompanied by the lecturer’s comments and
explanations. Were it not for the extraordinary force of the innovative
concept it conveyed (heartland), it would have been a simple map accompanying a lecture, not particularly self-explanatory, even a little enigmatic.
The geopolitical maps of the 1920s and 1930s are very different. These
addressed the general public and could circulate with or without accompanying text. They needed to be clearer and more self-explanatory. New
methods thus had to be explored – not only new modes of representation
and communication, but a revolution in the very relationship between the
maker of the map and its reader. The result of this experiment was not
obvious in the least. Indeed, it was literally extraordinary – it showed that
international political dynamics could be effectively represented through
maps. This was an attempt at venturing into the area branded by official
cartography (as fittingly expressed by Harley) “no cartography land”.59
The innovations introduced by geopolitical cartography in that period
offered possible solutions and prospects for problems which remain largely
unresolved to this day. They suggested that more flexibility be afforded the
cartographer in managing the relationship between reality and representation, that technical constraints be minimised and that geopolitical themes be
better integrated into cartographic language.
Naturally, these suggestions contained elements of criticism with regard
to scientific cartography which, due to its Cartesian foundations, favours
visual and material characteristics of the territory, through graphic and
geometric rationality.60 Geopolitical cartography, on the contrary, did not
consider space a universal, static category, with the sole purpose of identifying the location of places. Moreover, by rejecting the traditional metric view
of Eucledian space, it also unwittingly questioned the very basis of scientific
cartography, namely that, following Descartes’ principle of rationality,
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
305
accurate measurements will necessarily guarantee truthful representations.
Geopolitical cartography thus afforded a glimpse of the possibility of overcoming limits thus far considered intrinsic to the cartographic method,
thereby issuing an open challenge to traditional cartography, an attack on
hitherto unquestioned principles, norms, standards and requirements.
Furthermore, this kind of cartography seems to have had the (untapped) potential of initiating a constructive discussion reconsidering the role of the map.
At work behind the scenes of this dichotomy between traditional scientific cartography and the cartographic heresies of geopoliticians were social
forces and power interests, as attested by the coldness between academics
and geopoliticians, which turned it into a competition between two different
practices of producing knowledge of space struggling to assert themselves.
In closing, granted that the misguided ideological fervour of that cartographic period is worthy of censure, we should at the same time appreciate
and strive to preserve the awareness it generated of the importance of the
cartographic medium in representing phenomena, as well as the courage to
experiment with innovative technical solutions and to reclaim a role for cartography as an important mode of expression.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments on an earlier draft.
NOTES
1. F. W. Putzger, Putzgers Historischer Schul-Atlas. Grosse Ausgabe (Bielefeld and Leipzig:
Velhagen & Klasing 1940).
2. Ibid., pp. 136–137.
3. A. Radó, Atlas für Politik Wirtschaft Arbeiterbewegung. Der Imperialismus (Vienna-Berlin:
Verlag für Literatur und Politik 1930).
4. J. Bertin, Sémiologie graphique. Les diagrammes, les réseaux, les cartes (Paris-The Hague:
Mouton/Gauthier-Villars 1967) pp. 408–411
5. G. H. Herb, ‘Persuasive cartography in Geopolitik and national socialism’, Political
Geography Quarterly 8/3 (July 1989) pp. 289–303; G. H. Herb, Under the Map of Germany.
Nationalism and Propaganda 1918–1945 (London: Routledge 1997); M. P. Correa Burrows,
‘Propaganda cartográfica en la Alemania de Weimar’, Revista Historia y Comunicación Social 9
(2004) pp. 71 et seq.
6. K. Haushofer, ‘Die suggestive Karte’, Grenzboten 1 (1922) pp. 17–19; reproduced in a book
published in 1928 (K. Haushofer, E. Obst, H. Lautensach, O. Maull, Bausteine zur Geopolitik [BerlinGrunewald: Kurt Vowinckel Verlag 1928]), which also included an article by Otto Maull on the same
topic: ‘Über politischgeographische-geopolitische Karten’, pp. 325–342.
7. R. von Schumacher, ‘Zur Theorie der geopolitischen Signatur’, Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 12/4
(1935) pp. 247–265.
8. E. Letoschek, Geographischer Repetitions- und Zeichen-Atlas. Europa (Vienna: Im selbstverlage
der Verfassers, k.k. Artillerie-Cadeten-Schule, Arsenal. Für den Buchhandel in Commission bei Ed. Hölzel 1888).
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
306
Edoardo Boria
9. C. Sitte, ‘Möglichkeiten für den Aufbau besserer Raumvorstellungen und eines globalen
Abbilds der Erde’, Geographie & Wirtschaftskunde-Unterricht 64 (1996) pp. 44–52.
10. E. Letoschek, Sammlung von Skizzen und Karten zur Wiederholung beim Studium der Matematischen, Physikalischen und Politischen Geographie (Vienna: Kartographischen Anstalt von G. Freytag &
Berndt 1906).
11. Herb, Under the Map of Germany (note 5).
12. This article by Joseph März marks the beginning of the debate over the use of cartography as
a means of propaganda: J. März, ‘Die Landkarte als politisches Propagandamittel’, Die Gartenlaube 16
(1921) pp. 261–262.
13. R. Strausz-Hupé, Geopolitics. The Struggle for Space and Power (New York: Putnam 1942)
pp. 114–126
14. J. Thies, ‘Geopolitik in der Volksschule II. Das Kartenbild’, Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 9/12
(1932) pp. 629–634; K. Haushofer, ‘Rückblick und Vorschau auf das geopolitische Kartenwesen’,
Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 9/12 (1932) pp. 735–745; R. von Schumacher, ‘Zur Theorie der Raumdarstellung’, Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 11/10 (1934) pp. 635–652; A. Hillen Ziegfeld, ‘Kartengestaltung – ein
Sport oder eine Waffe?’, Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 12/4 (1935) pp. 243–247; von Schumacher, ‘Zur Theorie’ (note 7) pp. 247–265; W. Jantzen, ‘Kartenplakate für Aufklärung und Werbung’, Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 13/10 (1936) pp. 696–700; W. Jantzen, ‘Geopolitik im Kartenbild’, Zeitschrift für Geopolitik 19/8
(1942) pp. 353–358.
15. Maull (note 6) p. 325.
16. See for example the books authored by Walther Pahl (maps by Rudolf Heinisch), Kurt Trampler (maps by Arnold Hillen Ziegfeld, Rupert von Schumacher and Guido Gebhardt), Karl Springenschmid (maps by the author), Rupert von Schumacher and Hans Hummel (maps by Guido Gebhardt and
G. Jedermann).
17. F. Braun and A. Hillen Ziegfeld, Geopolitischer Geschichtsatlas (Dresden: L. Ehlermann 1927).
18. R. Zu der Luth, Wehrwissenschaftlicher Atlas (Vienna, Josef Lenobel 1934); A. Pudelko and
A. Hillen Ziegfeld, Kleiner deutscher Geschichtsatlas (Berlin/Tempelhof: Edwin Runge Verlag 1937).
A series of small atlases Geopolitische Bildreihe by Karl Springenschmid published by Verlag Ernst
Wunderlich as of 1933, comprised: Die Staaten als Lebewesen, Der Donauraum, Deutschlands
kämpft für Europa, Deutschland und seine Nachbarn, Deutschland, geopolitisch gesehen. Another
series of small atlases Geopolitik im Kartenbild by Walther Jantzen published by Kurt Vowinckel
Verlag as of 1939, comprised: Seegeltung, Die Juden, Verrat an Europa, Japan, Vereinigte Staaten
von Amerika, Mittelmeer. G. Wirsing, Der Krieg 1939/41 in Karten (Munich: Verlag Knorr & Hirth
1942).
19. In Spain the main promoter of geopolitical cartography was Jaime Vicens Vives, who
attempted a classification of geopolitical symbols in his Tratado General de Geopolitica (Barcelona: Ed.
Vicens Vives 1950) p 28.
20. H. Cairo, ‘Portugal is not a Small Country: Maps and Propaganda in the Salazar Regime’,
Geopolitics 11 (2006) pp. 367–395.
21. In the second edition of his university textbook Appunti di Geografia Politica (Rome:
Cremonese 1940).
22. As far as the circulation of Geopolitica, some say 1,000 copies a month (D. Atkinson, ‘Geopolitical Imaginations in Modern Italy’, in K. Dodds and D. Atkinson [eds.], Geopolitical Traditions: A
Century of Geopolitical Thought [London: Routledge 2000] p. 106), some say 2,000, of which 1,600 for
subscribers, mainly institutions (L. Romagnoli, ‘La rivista “Geopolitica” (1939–1942) di Giorgio Roletto ed
Ernesto Massi’, in Atti del XXVIII Congresso Geografico Italiano [2003] p. 3329; D. Lopreno, ‘La
Géopolitique du fascisme italien: la revue mensuelle “Geopolitica”’, Hérodote 63 [1991] p. 116).
23. Atkinson (note 22) p. 98; M. Antonsich, ‘La rivista “Geopolitica” e la sua influenza sulla politica
fascista’, Limes. Rivista Italiana di geopolitica 4 (1994) p. 275–276.
24. For a detailed list see Romagnoli (note 22) p. 3341.
25. A. Vinci, ‘“Geopolitica” e Balcani: l’esperienza di un gruppo di intellettuali in un ateneo di confine’, Società e storia 47 (1990) p. 127.
26. Appunti per una geopolitica degli Stati fennoscandinavi (Milan: Fratelli Magnani 1942); La
comunità imperiale e l’Albania: prime esperienze (Rome: Istituto Nazionale di Cultura Fascista 1942);
Saggi di geografia urbana (Milan: Magnani 1943), with no less than 35 maps.
27. Morandi authored the cartograms of Sui confini dell’Africa Orientale Italiana: studi geopolitici
sulla costa dei somali, sul Somaliland, sul Sudan anglo-egiziano, sul Chenia e Uganda, by Paolo D’Agostino
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
Geopolitical Maps
307
Orsini di Camerota published in November 1940. The same is true of Ernesto Massi’s La partecipazione
delle colonie alla produzione delle materie prime.
28. Cairo (note 20) p. 386.
29. Herb, Under the Map of Germany (note 5) pp. 95 et seq.
30. G. H. Herb, ‘Before the Nazis. Maps as weapons in German Nationalist Propaganda’,
Mercator’s World (May/June 1999) pp. 26–31.
31. E. Boria, Cartografia e potere (Torino: UTET 2007) p. 148.
32. The first edition of the textbook (1937) made no mention of geopolitical cartography. Criticism
appears for the first time in the second edition (1940), and is later reaffirmed (cf. 6th ed. [Rome:
Cremonese 1961] pp. 47–50).
33. S. Passarge, ‘Politische Geographie und Geopolitik’, Petermanns Mitteilungen (1935)
pp. 185–189.
34. G. Parker, Western Geopolitical Thought in the Twentieth Century (London: Croom Helm 1985)
pp. 79 et seq.; J. H. Paterson, ‘German Geopolitics Reassessed’, Political Geography Quarterly 6/2 (April
1987) pp. 107–114; M. Bassin, ‘Race Contraspace: The Conflict between German Geopolitik and National
Socialism’, Political Geography Quarterly 6/2 (April 1987) pp. 115–134.
35. H. A. Jacobsen, Karl Haushofer. Leben und Werk, Schriften des Bunderarchivs 24 (Boppard
am Rhein: Harald Boldt 1979); H. Heske, ‘Karl Haushofer: His Role in German Geopolitics and in
Nazi Politics’, Political Geography Quarterly 6/2 (April 1987) pp. 135–144; W. Natter, ‘Geopolitics in
Germany, 1919–45’. ‘Karl Haushofer, and the Zeitschrift für Geopolitik’, in J. Agnew, K. Mitchell, and
G. Toal (eds.), A Companion to Political Geography (London and New York: Blackwell 2003)
pp. 187–203.
36. A. Vinci, (note 25) pp. 87–127; E. Bonetti and F. Micelli, ‘Ancora sul concetto di geopolitica: le
lezioni di Giorgio Roletto nell’anno accademico 1943–1944’, in Ferro G. (ed.), Dalla geografia politica
alla geopolitica (Roma: Società Geografica Italiana) pp. 69–75.
37. Beyond the well-researched analyses on the relationship between cartography and Nazism,
Herb, Under the Map of Germany (note 5) pp. 84–89, demonstrated this also relative to the behaviour of
the German political leadership during and after World War I.
38. Compare, for example, the maps of the Italian journal Geopolitica and those printed for the
Ufficio Propaganda del Partito Nazionale Fascista (“I nostri fronti di guerra” series), or else those appearing in the “Soldaten-Atlas” of the Wehrmacht with those of the journal Zeitschrift für Geopolitik.
39. Herb, Under the Map of Germany (note 5) p. 160.
40. Ibid., pp. 161–162.
41. Ibid., pp. 165 et seq.
42. Ibid., pp. 97, 165.
43. This, at least, is the opinion expressed by Boria (note 31) p. 164–165 and Herb, Under the Map
of Germany (note 5) p. 159 et seq. A different opinion is expressed by M. Monmonier, ‘Mapping under
the Third Reich: Nazi restrictions on Map Content and Distribution, Coordinates. Online Journal of the
Map and Geography, series B/2 (2005).
44. Cairo (note 20) p. 390.
45. J. B. Harley, ‘Deconstructing the Map’, Cartographica 26 (1989) pp. 15–20.
46. H. H. Minor, ‘Mapping Mussolini: Ritual and Cartography in Public Art during the Second
Roman Empire’, Imago Mundi 51 (1999) pp. 147–162; Cairo (note 20) pp. 367–395.
47. For an account of the circumstances surrounding the project: Minor (note 46).
48. W. Jantzen, volume Die Juden (Heidelberg-Berlin-Magdeburg: Kurt Vowinckel Verlag 1940
circa). ‘Series Geopolitik im Kartenbild’.
49. See note 38.
50. Herb, Under the Map of Germany (note 5) p. 83.
51. von Schumacher, ‘Zur Theorie’ (note 7); Hillen Ziegfeld (note 14).
52. H. Haack and M. G. Schmidt, Geopolitischer Typen-Atlas (Gotha: Perthes 1929); the didactic
objective of this work becomes clear already in the subtitle: Introduction to the Basic Concepts of
Geopolitics.
53. Note also that intellectual debt is often expressly acknowledged. For example, in the introduction to the small atlas Deutsches Schicksal (Verlag von Julius Beltz, year of publication not mentioned)
Karl Springenschmid’s work is acknowledged. The contribution of the “fathers” of geopolitical cartography is often acknowledged in papers on the subject.
54. Wirsing (note 18).
308
Edoardo Boria
Downloaded By: [University of Colorado Libraries] At: 20:22 27 December 2010
55. The first in ‘La Svizzera’, Geopolitica (1941) pp. 257–261 and the others in ‘La Svezia,
la Norvegia, la Danimarca’, Geopolitica (1941) pp. 587–593.
56. Geopolitica (Oct. 1941) p. 499.
57. D. Cosgrove, ‘Maps, Mapping, Modernity: Art and Cartography in the Twentieth Century’,
Imago Mundi 57 (2005) pp. 35–54.
58. G. O’Tuathail, Critical Geopolitics (London: Routledge 1996) p. 31.
59. Harley (note 45) p. 6.
60. C. Jacob, L’Empire des cartes. Approche théorique de la cartographie à travers l’histoire (Paris:
Albin Michel 1992).