Historiographical debates History Flashcards
. What was the common opinion on the origins of the war until 1961? (Bell) In what ways
did A.J.P. Taylor’s views diverge from this consensus? What is your view?
Hitler was responsible for the war. and its his personal actions pushed for the war to happen.
However Bell says that the mulitple caused the war, and that the great depression and international failures caused the second world war.
League of nations failure.
Taylor believes that Hitler was an opportunist and that Hitler just took advantage of the situation, it was not a detailed planned event, more so of someone who took advantage of the situation. (however the main issue is that it Taylor downplays ideology,)
(Refer to Bell) What is the “thesis of the Thirty Years War”?
What arguments does Bell offer against this thesis?
The Two wars were actually one, The second war was inevitable and that the war was caused by the treaty of versailles.
It ignores the great depression and appeasement
This is the view that ww2 was almost an extension of ww1. Basically the outcone of ww1
lay the foundations for ww2, that it was invetibaly going to happen so can be seen as a
continuation of the conflict. It is critisied as excusing the Nazi actions and that it is far
too simplistic and ignorant of shock factors like the wall street crash.
- What is the so-called intentionalist view of the origins of the Holocaust?
Mention two arguments these historians have used. Give an evaluation of their
arguments (Use Breitman in your answer)
Intentionalsim sees the holocaust as he result of a long standing plan by hitler and nazi
leaders to exterminate the jewish population
- Mein Kampf dpeaks of the jewish question and racal purity
- The Nuremburg laws (1935) began to islate jews from german society as part of a
step by step plan leading to genocide. In 1939 Hitler gave a speech talking of the
innihilation of the jewish race in Europe
o Breitman acknowledges Hitler’s ideological consistency but argues that
the timing and execution of the holocaust was due to wartime
developments. Basically, hitlers udeikolgy was genocidal but the specific
means and scale were developed later due to situational factors
- What is the so-called structuralist interpretation of the origins of the Holocaust?
Mention two arguments. Give an evaluation. (Use Breitman in your answer)
28
The structuralists argue that the holocaust was a conseuqnece of the chaotic structure
within the Nazi government rather than an expliit premedtated plan
- Cumulative radicalization – competing agencies witin the government sought to
outdo one another with increasing antidemitic measures which eventually
pushed the state to genocide
- The outbreak of ww2 changed the dynamics of nazi leadership and the drastic
measures of the jewish question. The massive influx of jewish populayions in
into nazi occupied areas lead to radical solutions that culminated in genocide.
- Breitman argues that the organizational disorder has weight but highlights key
figures like Himmler and Heydrich were highly intentional. So he proposes a
middle gorynd between ideological intent and bureaucratic ideas.
- Why did the Cold War arise according to Hanks? Pay attention to the Truman Doctrine,
the Marshall Plan, the foundation of Nato and the war in Korea.
Did Truman misinterpret Stalin’s policy?
What were Stalin’s goals in occupying Eastern Europe?
Alexis de Tocqueville
Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan
NATO
Berlin Blockade
- How and why did the Cold War end according to Schweizer? What arguments and what
evidence does he put forward? Evaluate his view.
Focuses on the US policies and strategic economic pressures
- Pushed for lower oil prices with Saudi Arabia to deprive the SU of oil revenue
- Technology restrictions and export controls to limit soviet access to western
technology
- Increased defence spending forces the SU to increase their defense spending to
keep pace, putting further strain on their economy
- Reagan’s SDI installed fear and forced allocation to an arms race it could not
a\ord
- CIA support for anti-communist insurgencies destabilized soviet influence
- Reagan’s open rhetoric criticizing the soviet union as an evil empire
o Does not account for internal soviet factors or broader geopolitical
changes including the independence of the eastern Europe
- What were Gorbachev’s goals in reforming the Soviet Union according to Aron? What
were Gorbachev’s reasons?
New policies centred around reviving the soviet economy admist growing stagnation,
loss of oil revenues, rising defence spending, disillusionment. They were Glasnost and
Perestroika. Glasnost was political openeess and perestroika was economic
restructuring hoping to include more free market mechanisms .
Criticised Gorbachev
- Overreliance on the stability of the New Thinking Reforms
- And that these reforms accelerated the collapse by exposing ine\iciencies and
emboldening dissent
- The fall of the eastern bloc started the unravelling of soviet power
- Indecisiveness created a vacuum for the collapse
- What three schools of interpretation concerning the role Reagan and Bush played in
ending the Cold War are there according to Fischer? Characterize their views briefly.
Where does Schweizer fit in?
The “Reagan Victory School”: This view argues that Reagan’s military buildup, tough stance on the Soviet Union, and strategic pressure (such as the arms race) forced the Soviet Union to negotiate and ultimately led to the end of the Cold War.
The “Gorbachev Reform School”: This perspective emphasizes Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost and Perestroika as the key factors that led to the end of the Cold War. It suggests that Gorbachev’s desire to reform the Soviet economy and reduce tensions with the West drove the thaw in relations.
The “Systemic Factors School”: This view argues that structural economic problems and internal issues within the Soviet Union, such as economic stagnation, military spending, and the pressures of maintaining a superpower, made it unsustainable to continue the Cold War.
Schweizer argues for a balance between these views, emphasizing that Reagan’s policies (such as military pressure and strategic initiatives) and Gorbachev’s reforms worked in tandem to bring about the Cold War’s end. He stresses the role of leadership decisions, strategic pressure, and the systemic weaknesses of the Soviet Union.
- Indicate why 1981-1983 were the “hardline years.” (Fischer, p. 269)
The years 1981-1983 were the “hardline years” because Reagan’s administration pursued an aggressive approach against the Soviet Union, focusing on military buildup, high defense spending, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and strong anti-communist policies.
- What is Fischer’s final judgment on the three schools she discussed at the beginning
of her article? Explain her answer.
Emphasises the role of leadership rather than structural perspectives
- Looks at the diplomatic initiatives like the Reykjavik Summit and INF treaty
- Looks at Reagan as a peacemaker with flexibility and pragmatism
- Admits gorbachevweaked the soviet union
- Active engagement
- Summarises the three main views
o Orthodox: US wins (triumphalist)
o Revisionist: internal soviet factors
o Post-revisionist: an interplay of both
How do Heydrich, Himmler, and Hitler justify the final solution?
Heydrich framed the genocide as a bureaucratic and administrative solution. He
saw the final solution as necessary for national security, portraying Jews as
subversive elements within Europe
- Himmler uses racial purity as a moral imperative- the extermination was noble.
- Hitler: fulfillment of a historical and ideological mission
JoRs criticism of Goldhagen’s study? What is the circular argument
The circular argument: the germans committed atrcoities because of antisemitic
beloefes. These aricities are then used as proof of these beleifs without looking at other
factors like coercion, peer pressure or opportunism.
Jo\ criticises this as eliminationist anti-semitism.
Alperovitz view on the atomic bomb? And Hamby’s response? Why does Herring
think Truman used the bomb?
Alperovitz argues that the boming was aimed to deter SU and establish dominance and
not necessrauly end the war. Japan was already close to surrendering, making the
bombs unnecessary
Hamby’s argues that Japan had showed little willingness toa ccet the unconditional
surrender and that the bomb was necessary to compel surrender and save American
lives
Herring argues that Truman approved the bomb primarily to end the war quickly and
avoid a deadly invasion of Japan. Rooted in prgmatisim and a desire to minimize
American casaulities.
