More handpicked essays just for you.
Nazi foreign policy 1933-1939 and appeasement
Successes and failures of Nazi policies
Nazi foreign policy and ideology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in Germany after World War I influencing Nazi foreign policy, the general goals this foreign policy prescribed to included revision of Versailles, the attainment of Lebensraum, or 'living space', and German racial domination. These foreign policy goals are seen through an examination of the actions the Nazi government took in response to events as they happened while in power, and also through Hitler's own ideology expressed in his writings such as Mein Kempf. This synthesis of ideology and social structure in Germany as the determinants of foreign policy therefore can be most appropriately approached by attributing Nazi foreign policy to a combination as both 'intentionalist' and 'structuralist' aims. Nazi foreign policy radicalized with their successes and was affected by Hitler pragmatically seizing opportunities to increase Nazi power, but also was based on early a consistent ideological programme espoused by Hitler from early on.
Nazism in Germany was a response to World War I, the Treaty of...
... middle of paper ...
...logy and goals, and also a opportunist and exploitative man in regard to opportunities within foreign policy as they were presented him.
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.
Hauner, Milan. "Did Hitler Want World Dominion?" Journal of Contemporary History 13.1 (1978). JSTOR. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.
politician, war hero, and a leader he put his heart into it. Sure he may have made a
The main purpose of the book was to emphasize how far fear of Hitler’s power, motivation to create a powerful Germany, and loyalty to the cause took Germany during the Third Reich. During the Third Reich, Germany was able to successfully conquer all of Eastern Europe and many parts of Western Europe, mainly by incentive. Because of the peoples’ desires and aspirations to succeed, civilians and soldiers alike were equally willing to sacrifice luxuries and accept harsh realities for the fate of their country. Without that driving force, the Germans would have given up on Hitler and Nazism, believing their plan of a powerful Germany...
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
Nazism possess the core features of totalitarianism, however has a few differences which distinguishes it. Totalitarianism, by the Friedrich-Brzezinski definition, is when the government establishes complete control over all aspects of the state,maintaining the complete control of laws and over what people can say, think and do. Nazi Germany satisfies most of this criteria, as they had a one party system without political opposition. Moreover, they had a single unchallenged leader, in Hitler, to whom the entire nation conformed to. Furthermore, the party had nearly complete control over the country, controlling what people thought through propaganda and censorship, as well as what people could do through fear and terror. However, there are
Heinrich von Treitschke is a cause of World War II because of his idea that imperialism is a viable and practical way to further the common good, and strengthen a nation. This appeared in the writings of leaders, such as Mussolini and Hitler, just before World War II, focusing on the idea that, “Only the truly great and powerful states ought to exist” (Treitschke 293). Mussolini believed that war was the greatest measure of the greatness of a country and its people (399). Mein Kampf written by Hitler, echoes Treitschke in the line, “The stronger must dominate and must not blend with the weaker orders and sacrifice their powers” (401).
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.
...a man who thought he was doing the right thing and saving the people from an unjust government; meanwhile, failing to look ahead and see the possible consequences of his monumental decision.
It is the intention of this paper to explicate the United States’ entrance into World War II. In order to achieve current purposes, this essay will advance as follows: Section 1 will explain how Adolf Hitler defied the Treaty of Versailles and turned a depression-wracked country into a major military power, Part 2 will discuss Hitler’s strategies concerning the “Jewish problem” in Germany and his military conquests from 1936 to 1940 in his attempt to control Europe, Portion 3 will expound the provisions of the Neutrality Acts and how the United States gradually repealed the provisions as Hitler became a serious threat to the world, and finally, Section 4 will both explain the position of the United States regarding the rise and threat of the Nazi power and how the United States began to slowly shed its isolationist beliefs in the wake of Hitler’s power and will conclude this essay.
Commentators on the Third Reich tend to be divided into two groups: the Intentionalists and the Structuralists. The former emphasize that all essential political decisions were taken by Hitler, being the prime coordinator in domestic and foreign policy, essentially equating Nazism with Hitlerism. The latter emphasize the limitations on Hitler's freedom of action as a result of forces operating within the State. They argue that, under Hitler, Nazi Germany suffered from a leadership crisis. Preferring not to side so rigidly with either perspective, I rather, agree certain aspects from each commentary. I do believe however, that the Third Reich imploded due to Hitler's unreasonable amount of power, and the fear that circulated opposing the "Fuhrer."
Studying history through his lens of objectivism, Taylor’s theory is that Hitler’s design wasn’t one of world domination; rather his methods, especially his foreign policies, didn’t differ from his predecessors. However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start.
... knew how to get things done and wasn’t afraid to do them. This is surely the attitude of a newly imperialist country.
The Nazis are infamous for their heavy use of propaganda during their reign in the Third Reich, they used many means of propaganda such as posters, cartoons, radio, film, etc. The German citizens’ constant exposure to all of this propaganda from all directions had a deep psychological and psychoanalytical impact on them, it redefined their identity and who they were as well as what they thought of the world around them. Nazi propaganda often had deep symbolic meaning usually associated with anti-semitism and German nationalism, these elements were already present in the minds of the majority of Germans so it wasn’t hard for Adolf Hitler and the rest of the Nazi party to further provoke and enrage the emotions of people concerning these things, they merely had to tap into these pre disposed emotions in a way that would have the most favourable psychological impact for the Nazis. Some of the opinions and mindsets that German citizens had may have been there even before the Nazis came into power and made it seemed like they were brainwashing people with their propaganda, but with what justification can it be said that Nazi propaganda had a psychological and psychoanalytic impact on the German population to a great extent, rather than it being the work of pre set psychological states of mind of people due to the Treaty of Versailles, the Great Depression, Hyperinflation, and other sources which may have led the German population to support and hold anti-semitistic and nationalistic ideologies.
MODERN HISTORY – RESEARCH ESSAY “To what extent was Nazi Germany a Totalitarian state in the period from 1934 to 1939?” The extent to which Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state can be classed as a substantial amount. With Hitler as Fuhrer and his ministers in control of most aspects of German social, political, legal, economical, and cultural life during the years 1934 to 1939, they mastered complete control and dictation upon Germany. In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is run by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support.
Historians argue that in Nazism, ‘the value of the totalitarian concept seems extremely limited’ as they compare the regime to other totalitarian states. They state that Nazism could not have been totalitarianism because it wasn’t as organized and monolithically structured as Stalin’s Russia. The Nazism ideology was a mere scheme of self-fulfilment and lacked the methodical theory of Marxism. Under no circumstance was there a level of state possession and influence over the economy in comparison to that which developed in Stalin’s Russia. In spite of the Nazi Party’s dominance over state affairs, authority was divided between themselves and a quantity of major power groups including the industrialists and the armed forces, while Stalin’s Communist Party possessed unconditional power over all Russian state affairs. A German historian stated that Hitler ‘...brought about a state of affairs in which the various autonomous authorities ranged alongside and against one another...’ Hitler relied on a level of popularity from the nation acquired through promoting himself through propaganda to maintain his leadership. There are no implications that Stalin sought popular appeal to maintain his power. Generally, historians have debated the weak dictatorship of Hitler but never have they contemplated ...