Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Foreign policy hitler
Nazi domestic and foreign policy, 1933 - 1939
Hitler's foreign policy during World War 2
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Foreign policy hitler
Ian Kershaw is correct when he argues that while Hitler was responsible for the execution of the German foreign policy that inevitably led to World War II, Hitler was not free from the influence of outside forces. Kershaw, a professor of history at the University of Sheffield, is a structuralist. Structuralists generally believe Hitler cannot be held solely responsible for World War II and that he was “was a product of the environment he helped to create”. When it comes down to specifics, the structuralists tend to emphasize different aspects; for example, one may focus on the effects of socioeconomic pressure while another may focus on the lack of a coherent plan (343). Kershaw’s article draws from many aspects of structuralism and delivers a sufficient comprehensive argument in his excerpt. German foreign policy during the Third Reich is a great source of great debate. Many historians agree that Hitler did make the big decisions of foreign policy after 1933. However, the disagreement occurs when discussing the extent which the foreign policy was derived from Hitler’s own “ideological pre-possessions and programme” (356). According to the structuralists, the foreign policy emphasized expansion and contained unclear and unspecific aims. This was due to the “uncontrollable dynamism and radicalizing momentum of the Nazi movement and governmental system” (353). Hitler’s foreign policy stressed his image and ideological fixations, not his direct intervention and initiative. Hitler is seen as an opportunist who makes spur-of-the-moment decisions, rather than a man with a concrete plan (354). Kershaw provides support for his argument by including the views of other structuralists, such as Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, and ... ... middle of paper ... ...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).
Gottfried, Ted, and Stephen Alcorn. Nazi Germany: The Face of Tyranny. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2000. Print.
Hitler blamed the Jews for the evils of the world. He believed a democracy would lead to communism. Therefore, in Hitler’s eyes, a dictatorship was the only way to save Germany from the threats of communism and Jewish treason. The Program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was the instrument for the Nazis to convince the German people to put Hitler into power. Point one of the document states, “We demand the union of all Germans in a great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.” 1 This point explicates the Nazi proposition that Germany will only contain German citizens and also, that these citizens would display his or her self-determination towards Germany to the fullest.
The historical field concerning the Weimar Republic, Germany's parliamentary government during the interwar years, is not only an extremely sophisticated area of study, but an extremely competitive one as well. In the early eighties, a much heated and unprecedented scholarly dispute arose surrounding The Collapse of the Weimar Republic, written by David Abraham - at the time, a fledgling historian and assistant professor at Princeton University. Nazi seizure of power from the Weimar Republic has long intrigued scores of historians. Various models have been constructed in an attempt to explain how an entity such as the Nazi movement came to power over such an industrially, culturally, and socially advanced society such as Germany's (Notes from Jamie van Hook 2/14).
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...
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.
as a historian it is clear that in the years of 1941 and 1942 things
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.
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.
Who To Blame for the World War II World War II began on the 3rd September when Britain and France declared war on Germany after they had invaded Poland. Ever since the end of WWI Europe had been divided into different camps. The ideas of peace during the 1920s and 30s had been designed to eliminate the gaps between the camps. Unfortunately, this never worked and so Europe was still divided into two main camps when war was declared. Britain and France in Western Europe were the leaders of one camp.
Because of the state of Germany’s economy, Hitler portrayed himself as the saviour of Germany, the man that was going to restore the respect that their forefathers had earned & installed. However, under no uncertain terms was he going to do it alone, he pr...
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.
The goal of the Party had no evidence in the precise steps that would be used to fulfill the achievement. The vagueness of the Nazi Party’s goals is seen as a result from Hitler’s weak dictatorship, which is seen as part of the functionalist school of thought. From the Chancellor’s absence in the planning of the killings of the Jews, prominent Nazi leaders were able to assume excessively powerful positions. With regards to policy making, government inaction stemmed from Hitler’s fear of decreasing popularity through unpopular decisions. From Decoding the Holocaust, historian Draper explains that it was Hitler’s fear, which reduced his power as a leader combined with his “deference to senior leaders” and his ‘unrelenting trust to their political instincts’ was pinnacle in highlighting Hitler’s inability to effectively exercise ‘government policy making procedures’. This had in turn, left a space for high-ranking officials of the Party to have a large input into political decisions. With the officials in power over Hitler, the high-ranking officials were guided by racial ideology and on the basis or goals of “making Germany…more National Socialist” as displayed in Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class. However, the officials were not united as an organized group but rather were “focusing solely on their respective jurisdictions” exemplifying the lack of unity and the image of a chaotic Party. According to historian Mason, he expresses “It is likely a general agreement was made… to generically seek persecution of the designated enemies of the cause”. The party had lacked the explicit and practical goal, which had result in issues being treated in the most radical of ways. This had caused political improvisation to be a resort that was used constantly due to the “lack of policy rested upon the deployment of extreme violence”. In addition, the Nazi Party had found
The Responsibility of Hitler for World War Two In this essay I will be looking at the main causes of World War 2 and deciding whether it was all Adolf Hitler's fault that it began. I will be looking at things Hitler did, other causes and then concluding with my opinion. In some ways the war was Hitler's fault.
Some people think that the beginning of World War Two was all Germany or Hitler’s fault. Yes, it may have been their fault, but there were other events that occurred that may have also started it. There was a lot of stuff that happened in those years. Manchuria and Abyssinia were invaded, there was some trouble with the Treaty of Versailles,the policies of appeasement, the Nazi-soviet Pact, and the invasion of Poland. There is more explanation between these events. Of what happened, what they did to help, and what they did to help.
Adolf Hitler, the commander of the Third Reich, determined to make Germany the strongest power in Europe. In order to do so, Hitler must unite all German ethnic groups, deploy aggressive policies and defeat communism. These actions all would defy the Treaty of Versailles; Thus, Hitler’s desire ultimately led to the outbreak of the Second World War.