More handpicked essays just for you.
Hitler's domestic and foreign policies
Hitler's foreign and domestic policies
Hitler's domestic and foreign policies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hitler's domestic and foreign policies
Hitler had a policy of imperialism while he was a leader. He believed in "Lebensraum," which meant that, for him, the german people needed more space in order to grow and prosper. The Munich Agreement of 1938 shows this "aggressive and imperialistic behavior" that Hitler had in order to dominate other lands. The Munich Agreement represented a failed form of appeasement in which Britain permitted the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany. At first, Germany wanted to conquer the whole territory of Czechoslovakia, which Britain did not agree to. However, Britain did not want to go to war, so they committed a mistake by giving Germany a part of the territory Hitler wanted, thereby giving into his demands and allowing for future conquests. Neville
Germany, Hitler in specific, was one of the leading reasons as to why the world plunged into World War II. Hitler was allowed to take control over Czechoslovakia by Britain, France, and Italy to keep him
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
Hitler's Aims and Actions as the Cause of World War II When considering the reasons for the outbreak of war in 1939 it is easy to place the entire blame on Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy in the late 1930s. One British historian, writing a few years after the end of the war, claimed that ‘the Second World War was Hitler’s personal war, in that he intended it, he prepared for it, he chose the moment for launching it.’ In this assignment it is my intention to show that Hitler’s foreign policy was a major factor in causing the conflict but that other reasons, both long term and short term, need to be recognised as well. Probably the first factor that need considering is the Treaty of Versailles, of 1919.
Other countries mainly Britain responded to Hitler’s actions with appeasement and by not stopping him early on with collective security it directly caused World War Two. Collective Security is when multiple countries work together to strengthen a country in need. Based off of document 6 Winston Churchill suggested that Britain, France, and other nations should come together and protect Czechoslovakia from Hitler to stop the growth of Nazi power. Collective Security could have prevented Czechoslovakia from coming into German control. While in accordance with document 9 nobody could openly oppose Hitler’s massive forces he had accumulated. Which is why they didn’t use collective security to protect Czechoslovakia. Instead they used The Munich Agreement to appease to Hitler. The Munich Agreement handed over Czechoslovakia in hopes it would diminish Hitler’s need to keep taking over surrounding countries. Stated in document 7 The Munich Agreement was unnecessary because Czech defenses were relatively strong and during this time Germany wasn’t at its zenith of strength. Also Hitler’s generals were going to try to overthrow Hitler if he attacked Czechoslovakia because the Generals believed it was a foolish endeavour that would mean the downfall of
As an Austrian born soldier-turned-politician, Hitler was fascinated with the concept of the racial supremacy of the German people. He was also a very bitter, very evil little man. In addition, having lost the war, the humiliated Germans were forced by the Allies to sign the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 that officially ended World War I. According to the harsh terms of the treaty, Germany had to hand over many of its richest industrial territories to the victors, and was made to pay reparations to the Allied countries it devastated during the war. Germany lost its pride, prestige, wealth, power, and the status of being one of Europe's greatest nations.
Appeasing Hitler was primarily done for one goal; to avoid war and the many terrible things that came along with it. When World War I finally ended in 1918, millions of lives and dollars were lost. As a result, discussing problems seemed to be in everyone’s best interest. No one should ever be blamed for not wanting war because it’s very serious and not something that should be dealt with lightly. With saying that, appeasement was simply a negotiation, a way to solve problems without fighting, and nobody had a way of knowing what Hitler planned to do in the future. As Mackenzie King stated “Hitler appeared to be ‘a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot” (King, 1937) meaning that he seemed like the type of person who could obey rules and negotiate his problems, without causing conflict. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain once said, “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is, that we should be digging t...
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.
Meanwhile, Fuhrer Hitler and the Nazi party were continuing their domination of Europe and threatening to invade Czechoslovakia, which many felt would most likely incite another World War. To prevent this, England, France, Italy and Germany entered into an agreement, which would allow Germany to seize control of Sudetenland and is today known as the ‘Munich Pact’. Sudetenland had a large German population and its borders were in strategically strong areas for the German military. For negotiations to be successful there are many components that one must be aware of such as personalities of all parties, end goals of each person and the history of the country. England led the process with an appeasement policy as an attempt to mollify Hitler and the Nazi party and prevent war, which this pact did not.
In 1938, Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler met to discuss the aggressive foreign policy that Germany had. The two meetings ended in the Munich Pact, which only stood to appease Hitler. It allowed Germany to own Czechoslovakia, but no acquire additional territory. For years, it has been debated whether or not appeasement was right and if Germany should have been dealt with more firmly. On one side stands the people who believe that appeasing Germany was at least an attempt to remove the possibility of war and its causes. The other argument is that the war was inevitable, and willingly giving Czechoslovakia to Germany was turning them to a Nazi regime. Based on historical evidence and documents, it is solid that appeasement was not the correct
Winston Churchill once said to Neville Chamberlain, “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.” After World War 1, a man by the name of Adolf Hitler slowly rose to power in Germany. He implemented tactics to win over his people, then worked to remove all opposition of his leadership and further went on to proclaim a union with Austria in 1938. After gaining control of Germany and Austria, Hitler wanted more. In September of 1938, he met with the prime minister of England, Neville Chamberlain for a negotiation about territory in Czechoslovakia. Germany claimed that the advance for the area of Czechoslovakia would be the last territorial invasion his troops would take. Chamberlain then signed the Munich Agreement along with Italy, Germany and France confirming that Sudetenland (region in Czechoslovakia) would be Hitler’s last demand. Chamberlain was strongly opposed to entering a war, and believed the deal would put an end to Hitler’s desires for expansion.
After Germany’s takeover of Austria, Hitler focused on the Germans residing in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland. First, he ordered Sudetenland’s surrender to Germany, with full compliance from the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. Hitler, then, promptly changed his orders so that the German military could seize the area. Regarding the issue as “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing” (Crimea), he ended it with the signing of the Munich Agreement. In signing this agreement, Chamberlain not only strengthened Germany, but he also fed Hitler’s desire for more power and en...
Appeasement is the process or act of “pacifying or placating by acceding to their demands. In 1935, a naval agreement was signed by Britain and Germany. It was an agreement primarily associated by Neville Chamberlain - who became the prime minister of Great Britain in May 1937. Appeasement in that case was Britain giving Germany what Hitler wanted in hope that he would - at some point become satisfied and draw back on his aggressive actions. This policy lasted for three years - until France and Britain realized that it was hopeless, and that Hitler would always want more. The decision of Appeasement was strongly advocated by Chamberlain, as it was shown in a letter written to his sister on June 1938. Chamberlain was confident that appeasement would stop Hitler because of several reasons. At the time, he had many British people supporting him, as well as politicians - which gave him confidence relating to this issue. Chamberlain also had bigger threats, such as the spread of communism - which resulted in them not considering Hitler as their biggest problem. However, the appeasement di...
During the time periods of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, much of European history revolved around the conquest of foreign lands. This conquest was performed by the racially motivated, whether good or bad, European men of these decades. These men were looking to expand their empire, clustering around a belief in the idea of imperialism. Examples of nations that took part in the ideology of imperialism and foreign colonization abound. Out of these examples, two major nations were the British and the Belgian nations, and two major continents involved in colonization were that of Africa and Asia.
After the First World War that led to death of millions of people, many countries decided to put measures to avoid any future conflict. The League of Nations in the 1920s came up with the idea of collective security where countries acting together would discourage aggression and act to stop the aggressor. This did not work out well as countries failed to agree on common policies. As a result, appeasement was considered. It was a policy that was adopted by the British government in the1930s. It was formulated from the belief that some countries such as Germany were unfairly treated in the Versailles treaty of 1918-1919. Adolf Hitler came into power in Germany on January 1933 after exploiting the depression-afflicted economy and the vehement popular resentment against Versailles treaty. The Nazi leader started by alarming the diplomats on his hatred towards the parliamentary system of governance and democratic government. The policy of appeasement had good intentions, but failed to put measures against aggression by the Germany government, which eventually led to World War 2.
In their respective articles, both Daniel Walther and Isabel Hull address the German imperialistic theme pertaining to the implementation and presence of Deutschtum (i.e., German cultural characteristics) and the German way of life in German colonies in Africa, primarily in German Southwest Africa. It can be understood that this was done in order to establish German influence and superiority in its colonies abroad. Walther looks at how the education model in African colonies sought to cultivate young, nationalistic Germans at an early age, even though they were growing up away from the fatherland. Conversely, Hull addresses this theme as it pertains to how Germans in Africa attempted to use Germany’s military culture to address the Herero and