Abstract
The article is concerned with inconsistencies in Politics among nations (PAN) and Scientific man versus power politics in relation to statements on geopolitics. The article attempts to place these works in the internal and external context of the period in order to ascertain the reason for the inconsistencies. The analysis begins with the context of the chief academic debates in political geography at the time and proceeds to explain the source of the inconsistency between the two books, using the text and archival materials. Following this, the works and criticisms of Halford Mackinder, James Fairgrieve and Nicholas Spykman are examined. The external contextual elements of the Second World War, the beginning of the Cold War and the awakening of American global power are considered as factors in the shift towards a more favourable view on geographical considerations in international relations in PAN. The conclusion that the article reaches is that there are two factors which explain the inconsistency, the integration of American thought on international relations with Morgenthau’s own ideas and the diverging purpose of the books.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
