Case Study: Was World War II a Result of Hitler's Master Plan?
Adolf Hitler and World War II have become inseparable in the minds of most people; any discussion of one ultimately leads to the other. Due to the diabolical nature of Hitler’s actions and the resulting horrors, historical analyses of the war were slow to surface after the war. World War II was simply viewed as Hitler’s war, and all responsibility for it began and ended with him.
This all changed in 1961 with the publication of A.J.P Taylor’s The Origins of the Second World War. Taylor extended the scope of World War II beyond Hitler and found British and French actions culpable. Furthermore, he state that Hitler was more of an opportunist than an ideologue and that war was the result of misconceptions and blunders on both sides. His work was both praised for its open-mindedness and condemned for its perceived apologetic attitude toward Hitler. Regardless of its mixed reception, it opened the origins of the war and Hitler’s role to historical scrutiny. |
Nowhere was this move more welcome than in Germany, where scholars and citizens had been forced to live with the Hitler legacy. Scholars began investigating the Nazi era and Hitler’s role in it more openly, letting the chips fall where they would. In the 1980’s this developed into a national debate known as the Historikersteit (historical quarrel or debate), and the result was a flood of new works raising several interesting and proactive questions. Were Hitler and Nazism an aberration, or did they reflect a tradition well established in German history? Can Hitler be held solely responsible for the war and its horrors, or were others culpable as well? Was Hitler master of the Third Reich or a fragmented reflection of it?
German historians were not the only ones to participate in this process. They were joined by historians from other countries, many of them British. Eventually, most of this scholarship was divided into two schools of thought: the internationalists, who believed that the Third Reich and all that resulted from it emanated from Hitler’s will; and the functionalists or structuralists, who saw Hitler as a product of the environment he helped to create and could not ignore when it was time to make major policy decisions.
German historians were not the only ones to participate in this process. They were joined by historians from other countries, many of them British. Eventually, most of this scholarship was divided into two schools of thought: the internationalists, who believed that the Third Reich and all that resulted from it emanated from Hitler’s will; and the functionalists or structuralists, who saw Hitler as a product of the environment he helped to create and could not ignore when it was time to make major policy decisions.
Guiding Question:
Document evidence that supports one of the following claims and evidence to refute the other.
|
Topics for Discussion:
|
Reading:
|
For this case study you are to analyze Chapter 29 The Years of Axis Victory (Pgs. 902 - 908) and review the sources provided below. You are expected to be able to answer the guiding question in full depth with specific historical evidence and supporting details.
|
Sources:
Source 1:Three Faces of Fascism, Hitler and His Germany, Ernst Nolte, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
Despite the fact that the German people had Hitler's plan before them in Mein Kampf, they followed him anyway. Why? |
...The German recovery was also aided by the beginning of worldwide recovery. But no matter. Hitler claimed the credit. More Germans supported him, and those who did not were intimidated by open terrorism. Jews had already begun to stream out of Germany.
Hitler was now ready to implement his foreign policy. In 1935 the Rhineland was reclaimed by plebiscite and the following year remilitarized. In 1938 Austria was united with Germany; Czechoslovakia was surrendered to Germany; and on September 1, 1939, Poland was invaded. World War II had begun. That Hitler was a dangerous psychopath is virtually a cliche of modern European historical studies, and every book that deals seriously with Hitler or his age must come to terms with it and venture a diagnosis. A more interesting question than what particular aberration Hitler suffered from is why the German people were willing to follow a madman, in Werner Maser's phrase, "into the abyss." it is a much more difficult question, a more essential one, and one to which the answers are more diverse. German scholars of the postwar era have been especially preoccupied with this question. |
Source 2: Hitler: A Study of Tyranny, Alan Bullock, New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Bullock's account of Hitler at its last moment, late in April 1945, in the chancellery bunker in Berlin. While Russian artillery crashes above him, shattering what remains of his capital, he dictates to his secretary, Frau Junge, his will and his political testament. Hitler is on the point of committing suicide. |
Facing death and the destruction of the regime he had created, this man who had exacted the sacrifice of millions of lives rather than admit defeat was still recognizably the old Hitler. From first to last there is not a word of regret, nor a suggestion of remorse. The fault is that of others, above all that of the Jews, for even now the old hatred is unappeased. Word for word, Hitler's final address to the German nation could be taken from almost any of his early speeches of the 1920's or from the pages of Mein Kampf. Twenty-odd years had changed and taught him nothing. His mind remained as tightly closed as it had been on the day when he wrote: "During these years in Vienna a view of life and a definite outlook on the world took shape in my mind. These became the granite basis of my conduct. Since then I have extended that foundation very little, I have changed nothing it it..."
|
Source 3: Hitler, Mein Kampf
|
And so the folkish philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature, since it restores that free play of forces which must lead to a continuous mutual higher breeding, until at last the best of humanity, having achieved possession of this earth, will have a free path for activity in domains which will lie partly above it and partly outside it...
... Not until the international world view - politically led by organized Marxism - is confronted by a folkish world view, organized and led with equal unity, will success, supposing the fighting energy to be equal on both sides, fall to the side of eternal truth. A philosophy can only be organizationally comprehended on the basis of a definite formulation of that philosophy, and what dogmas represent for religious faith, party principles are for a political party in the making. Hence an instrument must be created for the folkish world view which enables it to fight, just as the Marxist party organization creates a free path for internationalism. |
Source 4: In 1936, British journalist John Langdon-Davies stated “Our Government is much more afraid of Communism than it is of Fascism.”
|
Throughout the early 1930s, France continued to worry about their safety against Germany particularly after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. He had always declared his firm intention of overthrowing the Treaty of Versailles and uniting all Germans in one country, even if it led to war. Germany began to re-arm. In May, 1935 France signed a treaty of friendship and mutual support with the USSR. Germany claimed the treaty was hostile to them and Hitler used this as an excuse to send German troops into the Rhineland in March 1936, contrary to the terms of the treaties of Versailles. This was Hitler's first illegal act in foreign relations since coming to power in 1933 and it threw the European allies, especially France and Britain, into confusion. Nevertheless, the European powers did not respond and feared Anglo-French reaction never came. In the League’s council, the USSR was the only country to propose sanctions. British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin ruled out the possibility.
Germany and Italy now realized that the democracies were seeking to avoid confrontation, so both countries continued to ‘test the limits’. During the Spanish Civil War, Hitler and Mussolini contravened the ‘Non-Intervention Agreement’, sending troops, equipment and planes to back the rebels. Their intervention was ignored by the international community. When Chamberlain became Prime Minister in May 1937, the pattern of appeasement had already been set. In March 1938, Hitler’s Anschluss (union) with Austria was once again met with Anglo-French impotence and inaction. |
Source 5: The Minutes from Chamberlain and Hitler’s Conversation at the Munich Conference, September 1938
In 1938, the Munich Conference was an agreement between England and Germany to allow for the occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Prime Minister of England Neville Chamberlain (1937-1940) met with Hitler to negotiate this agreement in Munich Germany without any Czechoslovakian representatives. |
He said that he had from his youth been obsessed with the racial theory and he felt that Germans were one, but he had drawn a distinction between the possible and the impossible and he recognized that there are places where Germans are where it is impossible to bring them into the Reich; but where they are on the frontier it is a different matter and he is himself concerned with ten millions of Germans, three millions of whom are in Czechoslovakia. He felt therefore that those Germans should come into the Reich. They wanted to and he was determined that they should come in. It was impossible that Czechoslovakia should remain like a spearhead in the side of Germany. So I said “Hold a Minute; there one point on which I want to be clear and I will explain why: you say that the three million Sudeten Germans must be included in the Reich; would you be satisfied with that and is their nothing more and you want? I ask because there are many people who think that is not all; that you wish to dismember Czechoslovakia. He then launched into a long speech: he was out for a racial unity and he did want of Czechs, all he wanted was Sudeten Germans. He then said “I am determined to settle it; I do not care whether there is a world war or not; I am determined to settle it and to settle it soon and I am prepared to risk World War rather than this to drag on.” To this I replied, “If the Fuhrer is determined to settle this matter by force without waiting even for a discussion between ourselves to take place what did he let come here for? I have wasted my time…If I could give my personal opinion which was that in principles I had nothing to say against the separation of the Sudeten Germans from the rest of Czechoslovakia; provided that the practical difficulties could be overcome.
|
Source 6: Note from Gen. Ismay, Secretary of Defense, Sept 1938. Marked Secret
General Ismay was the Secretary of Defense for the British government during the Sudetenland Crisis. Ismay was named only to the position of Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence, effective 1 August 1938. [From World War One to 1936, General Ismay was stationed in one of England’s colonies in Africa (i.e. Sudan) or Asia (i.e. India). While Chamberlain negotiated in Munich, Ismay began preparing London’s defenses for an attack. |
A German absorption of Czechoslovakia will enhance her military prestige, increase her war potential, and probably enable her to dispose of stronger land forces against France and ourselves than she can do at present.
So far as air power is concerned, Germany may be able to maintain her land over the French-British Air Force in air striking power. On the other hand, it is open to us, provide that we make the necessary effort, to catch her up, or at least greatly reduce her lead, in the matter of defense against air attacks. By so doing we shall have heavily increased ourselves against the greatest danger to which we are at present exposed; indeed by substantially reducing Germany’s only chance of a rapid decision, we shall have provided a strong deterrent against her making the attempt. It follows, therefore, that, from the military point of view, time in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-18 months time, than to accept the present challenge. |
Source 7: Adolf Hitler on foreign policy, from a speech to military commanders in February 1939
|
“All our actions in 1938 represent only the logical extension of the decisions which began to be realised in 1933. It is not the case that during this year of 1938—let us say—a particular action occurred which was not previously envisaged. On the contrary, all the individual decisions which have been realised since 1933 are not the result of momentary considerations, but represent the implementation of a previously existing plan.
For example, in 1933 I was not exactly certain when our withdrawal from the League of Nations would occur. However it was clear that this withdrawal had to be the first step towards Germany’s revival. And it was further clear that we would have to choose the first appropriate moment. We could see from the start that the next step would have to be rearmament, without the permission of foreign countries, but naturally we could not gauge the exact speed and extent of this rearmament right from the start. |
Source 8: The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, signed in August 1939, paved the way for Hitler and Stalin to invade Poland and claim Polish territory.
|
“The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the USSR, have reached the following agreement:
Article One The two contracting parties undertake to refrain from any act of violence, any aggressive action, or any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other powers. Article Two Should one of the contracting parties become the object of belligerent action by a third power, the other contracting party shall in no manner lend its support to this third power. Article Three The governments of the two contracting parties will in future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests. |
Source 9: Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain served as British Prime Minister from 1937-1940. Here are two sources by him coming IN September 1938. In 1938, the Munich Conference was an agreement between England and Germany to allow for the occupation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Prime Minister of England Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler to negotiate this agreement. |
Source A: Radio Broadcast (27th September, 1938)
How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing! I would not hesitate to pay even a third visit to Germany, if I thought it would do any good. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination, life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark on it, that it is really the great issues that are stake. Source B: Statement issued by Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler after the signing of the Munich Agreement (30th September) We, the German Führer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as Symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries. |
Source 10: Crash Course World History - World War II, A War for Resources
|
|
Why did war break out in Europe in 1939?
Work in your groups. Each group will get one of the following topics. Write it large on the top of a blank sheet of paper.
Stick your groups sheet up on the board when complete.
Discussion Question
- Hitler's actions
- The policy of Appeasement
- The problems caused by the Treaty of Versailles
- The Nazi-Soviet Pact
- The failures of the League of Nations
Stick your groups sheet up on the board when complete.
Discussion Question
- If we took any one of these causes of the war away would war have still broken out in 1939?