From the time Hitler and the Nazi’s took control of Germany in 1933 until the collapse of the Third Reich in 1945, the aim of the regime under the calculating guidance of Hitler himself sought no less than global conquest. This ambitious objective can be further dissected into short term and long term goals that provide insight into Hitler’s character, thoughts and actions.
Hitler’s extreme sense of nationalism and his perception that great nations are identified by their military power and their cultural contributions must have weighed heavily on his mind when he considered the state of the Germanic people throughout history. Hitler thought highly of the classical civilizations of Rome and Greece, especially their architectural and artistic contributions to society, yet his own people had few comparable achievements, either artistically or in terms of conquest, which the Romans had also done effectively. Rectifying this, at least for Hitler, required military and political action that dwarfed Germany’s best efforts even during the First World War. Additionally, upon the establishment of a powerful new German empire, Hitler wanted “to create a German culture state where the arts were supreme and where he could construct his buildings, hold art shows, stage operas, encourage artists and promote the music, painting and sculpture he loved.” (Spotts, 9) Hitler’s main aspiration was to create a neo-classical state that would be the dominant power in a new world order; one which placed heavy emphasis on culture, race and the spatial needs of the German people. These ambitions resulted in German rearmament, expansion and the mass murder and internment of Jews, “gypsies,” Slavs and other “inferior” races and peoples.
Germany’s policies...
... middle of paper ...
.... On the question of peace, one of Hitler’s close confidants Rudolph Hess wrote:
World peace is certainly and ideal worth striving for; in Hitler’s opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That power can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space.” (Weinberg, 28)
It is in this light that we can clearly see Hitler as a man motivated by more than a few limited objectives for Germany’s future. It is unlikely that he would have settled on the submission of France and Britain and the conquest of Eastern Europe and Russia. It is far more likely that he would have continued to pursue wars of conquest throughout Africa, and eventually the Western hemisphere given the proper opportunities.
Hauner, Milan. "Did Hitler Want World Dominion?" Journal of Contemporary History 13.1 (1978). JSTOR. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.
During the Holocaust, around six million Jews were murdered due to Hitler’s plan to rid Germany of “heterogeneous people” in Germany, as stated in the novel, Life and Death in the Third Reich by Peter Fritzsche. Shortly following a period of suffering, Hitler began leading Germany in 1930 to start the period of his rule, the Third Reich. Over time, his power and support from the country increased until he had full control over his people. Starting from saying “Heil Hitler!” the people of the German empire were cleverly forced into following Hitler through terror and threat. He had a group of leaders, the SS, who were Nazis that willingly took any task given, including the mass murder of millions of Jews due to his belief that they were enemies to Germany. German citizens were talked into participating or believing in the most extreme of things, like violent pogroms, deportations, attacks, and executions. Through the novel’s perspicacity of the Third Reich, readers can see how Hitler’s reign was a controversial time period summed up by courage, extremity, and most important of all, loyalty.
3. Once the war began, Germany developed a clear set of aims, already discussed before the war, to gain large territorial gains in central and eastern Europe, very similar to Hitler’s later craving for Lebensraum (‘living space’) in eastern Europe
The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the synthesis of the two schools, which acknowledges both Hitler’s centrality in explaining the essence of Nazi rule but also external forces that influenced Hitler’s decision making. In this sense, Hitler was not a weak dictator as he possessed supreme authority but as Kershaw maintains, neither was he ‘Master of the Third Reich’ because he did not exercise unrestricted power.
Living in the crumbled remains of Germany, or the Weimar Republic, in the 1920’s was a dismal existence. Hyperinflation was rampant and the national debt skyrocketed as a result of the punishing features of the Treaty of Versailles. During the depression, however, a mysterious Austrian emerged from the depths of the German penal system and gave the desperate German people a glimpse of hope in very dark times. He called for a return to “Fatherland” principles where greater Germany was seen as the center of their universe with zealous pride. Under Hitler’s leadership, Nazi Germany rapidly grew and expanded, continually approaching the goal of world domination and the “Thousand-Year Reich” that Hitler promised the German people. Only a few years later, Nazi Wehrmacht soldiers could be seen marching the streets from Paris to Leningrad (St. Petersburg, Russia). The German Empire, however, like all other expansive empires, had its limits and integral components such as resources, manpower, and industrial capacity began to fall in short supply further crippling the Nazi war machine. Basically, by 1944, “Nazi Germany’s fundamental problem was that she has conquered more territory than she could defend” (Ambrose, 27). Hitler conquered a vast area and vowed to defend every single inch of his empire with every last drop of blood at his disposal. As Frederick the Great warned, “He who defends everything, defends nothing” (Ambrose, 33). It is interesting to study any empire’s rise and fall because similarities are always present, even with some nations today promising to fight the evil, when it reality, it might be becoming what it vows to fight.
...ons imposed their own restrictions on Hitler’s maneuverability”. Therefore, Hitler made those decisions based not only on his own beliefs, but also in accordance to the beliefs of his followers and fellow leaders. Many of the developments that happened under Hitler’s reign would likely have still happened had Hitler not been elected, because they “were in certain respects likely if not inevitable as the unfinished business of the First World War and the post-war settlement”. There are few discontinuities in German foreign policy after 1933, giving reason to believe this theory. His choices were based on the traditions of German policy and were aimed at reaching domination in central Europe, which leads to the conclusion that World War II was not the result of Hitler’s master plan, because it may have been the result no matter who was in charge at the time (360).
Hitler got everything he wanted for so long, without even having to resort to force. Lukacs describes Hitler as ''being an amateur at generalship, but he posessed the great professional talent applicable to all human affairs: an understanding of human nature and the understanding of the weaknesses of his opponents. That was enough to carry him very far''(3). Lukacs wants to make that a point in all of his readers' minds; that Hitler could manipulate people so he could get what he wanted without resorting to violence.
Throughout history, wars were fought with pride, and those who fought were viewed as noble. But even among people who revered war, few viewed it as desirable in itself. “Hitler was one of the few, and to him war was more important than liberation, conquest, or even national survival. Under his leadership traditional thinking was reversed,” (Victor, 53). Hitler felt that war was desirable. He felt that the nation’s and the people’s existence were subordinated to war. This was made very clear during the Third Reich.
Hitler had one simple goal, to take over the world. He wanted to rule the world. He believed that the German people were superior to all others in the world and he was determined to lead them. He set out to conquer other nations one at a time. As England became the nation next on Hitler’s list, Churchill had one major goal, stop Hitler at all cost. Churchill strengthen his military, formed alliances with other countries, and then finally persuaded the United States to join in the fight.(pg.582)
...reak of the second world war depends therefore on whether Hitler had the genuine intention to conquer the world (‘Hitlocentric interpretation’) or was simply a master of opportunism (‘Revisionist historians’). Whereas some argue that appeasement and the Munich agreement caused the outset of the war, ‘Revisionist historians’ assert that the radical change of policy which occurred after the invasion of Poland was a great opportunity that Hitler did not hesitate to seize. This evaluation is therefore more ideological than empirical since the lack of convincing evidence impede historians to reach a consensus. However, blaming Chamberlain for the beginning of the war is unreasonable since he did not have access to the information we have — interpretation of the pas could be influenced by the moral judgements some would have when examining Hitler’s actions (Taylor, 1963).
Hitler believed in reunifying Germany and creating a stronger sense of nationalism. If this essay was supposed to have been written in September 1919, Germany would have lost WWI and the Treaty of Versailles would have been signed only three months earlier. Hitler was a very enthusiastic participant in WWI and was even awarded the Iron Cross for his bravery. One can infer from this that Hitler would have been deeply disappointed by Germany’s loss of WWI. Source makes no mention of WWI or Germany. Thought it speaks of European culture, it never
One of the characteristics of being a prominent leader was to have charisma and Hitler was very charismatic. In order for one to be charismatic, a deep understanding of people is needed. Hitler shared a common understanding with the people of Germany through their shared hatred of the treaty of Versailles .Hitler had promised the Germans that he would do all in his power to help them. From the military all the way to the industrialists, he guaranteed an answer for everybody. He promised to reconstruct the army, to develop the businesses and to offer a job to everyone. Hitler made promises about bringing Germany to its former glory so that they would have hope, which was vital in order for Germany to recover, but it could not have been done without charisma that only Hitler as a politician had. Through Hitler’s numerous speeches, he had influenced people into approving of his ideology of post war Germany. During that time, the Germans looked up to Hitler as his promises and charisma transformed him f...
Even though most everyone’s perception of Hitler as an maniacal lunatic is quite universal, shedding light on a few unknown facts about the controversial man might lead to giving more understanding as to why he committed genocide instead of the hate without comprehension of what he had been through. While Hitler has committed innumerable atrocious acts of war during his time as Reich, many events during his rising up caused him to become the tyrannical murderer he is, such as his relationship with his father, his early childhood education, and his struggle in Vienna.
Examinations of Hitler's role in the formulation of Nazi foreign policy and his goals of that foreign policy leads to questions of the limits of his goal of Lebensraum. This introduces the debate between 'globalists' and 'continentalists'. Expanding on Trevor-Roper's emphasis on Hitler's goals of Lebensraum, historian Gunter Moltmann argued that Hitler's aims were not confined to Europe but at world domination. Andreas Hillgruber expands on this idea with his concept of a three-stage plan he calls the Stufenplan as the basis for Nazi foreign policy. This plan involved Germany gaining mastery over Europe, followed by the Middle East and British colonial territory, and later the USA and with that the entire world.
In Hubris, Kershaw reconstructs the situations that allowed Hitler’s rise; his education in anti-Semitism in his youth, the destruction of Germany in the First World War, racial nationalism which consumed Bavaria (which his hometown Braunau am Inn shares a border) and the weakness of the Weimar Republic.