How far was Hitler's foreign policy responsible for the second world war? Flashcards
What are the main 2 perspectives on the reason for WW2?
Intentionalists - Hitler and the Nazis wants drove the world to war.
Structuralists - outside influences were just as, if not more significant than Nazi foreign policy.
What were the 3 main strands of Hitler’s views outlined in Mein Kampf that influenced his foreign policy:
1) Germany’s racial history.
2) Nostalgia for earlier empires.
3) WW1 and the effect of the ToV
Hitler’s racial theory and how this effected foreign policy:
Pan-Germanism: the idea that all German people shou;ld be united in 1 country
-He used this idea to clear Germany of ‘inferior’ people
-effected foreign policy by creating alliances with countries they saw as acceptable e.g. Britain (they still did though e.g. Japan although it was seen as a ‘necessary evil’)
How did Hitler use earlier German Empires:
-Focused on 2 empires: Charlemagne and Bismarck (Both used military power to secure their position and through alliances)
-Hitler used these empires to create the idea he was continuing their work and restoring Germany e.g. posters with Hindenburg, Hitler and Bismarck and Frederick the Great with Hitler in the front
Stab in the back:
Germans were uninformed on how badly the war was going –> creating feeling of betrayal amongst Germans and humiliation at the surrender ‘stab in the back’ that the Nazis used.
How did WW1 affect Hitler’s views?
In Mein Kampf, he spoke about his experience as a soldier and the feeling of betrayal he had.
-He joined DAP which 25 point programme contained many ideas of expansionism and racial theory.
Diktat:
Dictated peace that Germany had from the ToV.
Rearmament in WR:
Members of the Reichstag agreed that Germany did not have to agree to disarmament.
–> Germany secretly rearmed on Soviet soil e.g. 1926 training near Kazan for German soldiers by the USSR.
(-known by the government who even funded it through several billion marks through a Phoebus Film Company)
How did the Treaty of Versailles effect Foreign Policy:
-Any party that opposed the treaty were popular so the Nazis had to.
-Problems could be blamed on the Treaty than war –> easier to convince a population to go to war.
-The Treaty created many unstable, self-determining states which were easy targets for Germany.
How did the ToV affect other countries foreign policy:
Britain (and some French) saw the treaty as too harsh and turned a blind eye on secret rearmament e.g. 1935 Anglo-German Naval Pact.
-Foreign guilt over the treaty led many countries to treat Germany more leniently and ignore the reversal of the terms of the Treaty (which only encouraged the Nazis)
Evidence of structuralism in Hitler’s FP aims:
Many of his aims were similar to that of the Weimar and Kaiser Governments
-Overturning the treaty.
-Kaisers government was similar Hitler’s in stressing expansionism and imperialism especially into eastern Europe.
Hitler’s ideology:
-Overturn ToV: rearm, regain land. He wanted to go beyond this and claim land they never had in the first place.
-Nazi Reich should be large and powerful empire: alliances, war (different to Kaiser as Hitler wanted them to be ‘ethnically acceptable’
-Lebensraum: Expansionism in order to meet the needs of his people e.g. raw materials and farmland. Linked to his racial theory as this land needed to be ‘cleared’ e.g. Hitler stressed conquering Slavic areas in Europe.
-End ‘threat’ from Jewry and Bolshevism: He was paranoid of any anti-German conspiracies stirred up by Jewish people in other countries.
–> part of his need for Lebensraum also stressed defeating Bolshevism in eastern Europe.
Evidence that Hitler did have a masterplan:
Keeping ministers from WR in until 1936 - shows he was a long term planner and wanted to appear more moderate.
Land gains from 1936-1939 directly line up with the aims he expressed in Mein Kampf.
Evidence Hitler did not have a masterplan:
Keeping minster officials from WR - shows he did not interfere much as he would have replaced them if he did have a plan.
Mein Kampf polices can be seen as more broad aims rather than an actual plan.
Nazis were unprepared for some moves in Foreign policy e.g. Anschluss (although this may have happened early due to the actions of the Nazi party in Austria)
Hitler as an individual:
-Hypnotic speech maker.
-Bad at personal relations e.g. his bursts of fury in meetings and speeches.
Evidence that Hitler intended war and counterpoint?
From the start of his dictatorship (more evident from 1935), he was remilitarising quickly e.g. by 1939 103 infantry divisions and 3000 tanks.
Counterpoint - Hitler intended small local wars e.g. Blitzkrieg and not a long drawn out world war, he also spoke of rearming for defence rather than for attack (probably lying - told generals to not provoke military attack until ready).
Could Hitler have avoided war whilst achieving his aims?
Some aims, such as Lebensraum and creating a powerful empire required Hitler to expand eastwards and create an Empire through war.
-Although, this does not necessarily mean he intended to go to war with Britain and France.
Munich Conference and its significance:
Hitler agreed to stop expansion at the Sudetenland
- Some historians believe Hitler intended war to start with Czechoslovakia rather than Poland as post Munich Conference he seta date for invasion and made speeches suggesting war.
-Britain and France did nothing to stop Hitler despite France’s alliance with Romania and Yugoslavia to protect it.
How many Germans lived in Danzig?
800k.
Military of Poland:
Despite allies trying to portray it as a weak country once war started, it was the opposite.
-Went to war with USSR over Ukraine in 1920 and had a large army (although not very mechanised)
When was Nazi non-aggression pact with Poland:
1934
Locarno Pact:
1924 Pact with France and Poland for mutual protection.
Nazi Relations with Poland summarisation pre-1936:
-Non aggression pact in 1934 to act as buffer between Germany and USSR in a potential invasion.
–> showed long term planning as whilst he recognised importance of regaining Danzig/Polish Corridor, he wanted to rearm first as it was more important
-Nazi Party won majority election in Danzig in 1933.
In summation, Hitler treated Poland as a potential future part of Germany but he was more concerned with rearming and the USSR to do anything about it until 1936.
Significance of the remilitarisation of the Rhineland on Germany’s relations with Poland:
-Poland offered to help France drive Germany out of the Rhineland but France refused.
–>Poland had exposed itself as willing to fight.
–>France had shown itself as unwilling to fight and therefore Hitler became more confident.
Anti-Comintern Pact:
Pact between Germany France and Italy from 1936 to fight communism.
Hitler offered for Poland to join but they refused.
What 2 Pacts solidified Hitler’s military confidence in the late 1930s?
1939: Germany and Italy sign Pact of Steel (one reason Germany didn’t invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 was due to Mussolini’s urging him to negotiate with them).
:Germany and USSR sign non-aggression pact (doomed Poland)
Why did Hitler invade Poland?
-Britain and France had shown themselves as unwilling to defend it and he had not seen any evidence from them of rapid militarisation.
-Confidence from his military allies.
-Racial ideology and the desire to unite Germans (pan-Germanism)
Did Hitler intend to start a world war in Poland?
- Hitler had spoken in speeches of being ready for large-scale war in the 1940s
- Most likely saw British desire to protect Poland as bluff
What led Britain and France to change their policy away from appeasing Germany?
-His decision to take the Sudetenland in 1939.
-His increased Brutality towards Jews and minorities in Germany and its territory.
-public opinion had shown that the public saw war as the only way to stop Hitler.
How did Ideological divides lead to WW2:
-Initially the anti-communism of Germany, Italy and Japan appealed to the west due to the long history of discontent between the west and the USSR e.g. funding Whites during Russian civil war.
-As these dictatorships continued, the situation reversed and Britain needed an alliance with the USSR to protect from Germany, but they did not want it due to their ideological divides.
Collective Security:
-post war idea of countries working together to settle their disputes without war –> League of Nations.
3 main issues of the League of Nations:
-Not all counties were apart of it - weak as a worldwide power as not all countries had to listen to it.
-League was too slow to make decisions e.g. economic sanctions.
-Didn’t have its own army - didn’t have to obey them.
This all meant that Nations could do what they want without needing to adhere to their rules and it gave Hitler more confidence as he did not see it as a genuine force he had to compete with.
Examples of the failure of the League of Nations:
1931:Mukden Incident meant Japan took control of Manchuria - LoN protested but did nothing and Japan left the league.
1935: Italy invaded Abyssinia and LoN puts sanctions on Italy and demands it leaves. In secret, they had negotiated a pact (Hoare-Laval Pact) to give 2/3 of Abyssinia to Italy. By 1936, Italy had it all and LoN did nothing.
1936: Spanish civil war - League wavered as civil war did not come under their jurisdiction. Germany and Italy intervened in the conflict despire LoN trying otherwise and there were no sanctions (example of fascists getting away with ignoring the League)
Reasons that the British followed appeasement:
-Genuine desire for peace.
-Colonies lacked motivation to go to war after WW1 which would cause problems with trade.
(these convinced Germany, Italy and Japan to take more territory)
Why did French favour appeasement policies in the 1930s?
-Initially resentment due to the failure to uphold the ToV.
-Turned to appeasement after failure of invasion of the Ruhr (due to strong fear of German invasion as best shown by the Maginot line).
-Made massive amounts of alliances throughout the 1930s e.g. friendly agreements with the USSR in 1935 to protect itself from Germany after Britain left it feeling isolated.
-This on top of political instability (11 governments between 1932 and 1935) caused France to favour appeasement policies against Germany.
USSR position in the 1930s:
In a similar position to Hitler but on opposing sides:
-Wanted autarky and a strong army and wanted to avoid war.
-Joined the LoN as a reaction to Nazi-Polish non aggression pact.
-Late 1930s - fighting with Japan made them favour an alliance with Germany to avoid fighting both Germany and Japan.
USA policy in the 1930s and how it convinced Hitler victory was achievable:
Isolationism - neutrality on Spanish Civil war and in Abyssinia but still exported arms to Germany and Italy. Tried to work for world peace.
-USA stated they would never go to war in Europe convinced Hitler to go to war which was encouraged by the 1937 Neutrality Act.
Japan and Italy:
-Japan encouraged Germany due to its aggressive policies against the USSR and in case USA joined the war.
-Italy encouraged Germany simply by doing the pact of steel. Although it was not a perfect alliance, their combined strength convinced Germany war was winnable.
