Hello Susie,
My Modern History teacher is very vague in giving feedback. Could you please review my essay (if you have time) and could you please give some moderate feedback. Thanks, Isho. My essay is on - INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND CONFLICT - CONFLICT IN EUROPE 1935-1945
Question - "To what extent were the dictatorships in Germany and Italy responsible for the growth of European tensions"
It is highly critical that during the decade which preceded the outbreak of the Second World War, two dictators rose to power, Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy. The expansionist and fascist ideals of both dictators was the impetus for the growth of tension in Europe, till the outbreak. However, despite their primary responsibility in the formulation of these tensions, these tensions did not equate directly to the outbreak of war, but instead hold a catalytic significance to a number of events which led to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, namely the failure of the League of Nations, the policy of appeasement and the significance of the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact. Therefore it is clear that the dictatorships in Germany and Italy were highly responsible for the growth of European tensions.
Adolf Hitler became German Fuhrer in 1934, and granted himself the dictatorship of Germany. His aggressive foreign policy and motives behind the expansion of the German Empire (known as Lebensraum) significantly influenced his actions in instigating tensions. Hitler’s foreign policy was based upon avenging the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany and retuning the empire to its former glory. As such, his actions were expansionist and imperialist, with the continual annexation of ‘rightful German territory’. Hitler’s remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, the ‘Anschluss’ of the late 1930s and the occupation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia were all catalytic, aggressive actions, which, having met no resistance, signalled the imminence of war. Hitler’s belief or ‘lebensraum’ (living space), which he referred to in his diary ‘Mein Kampf’ and the power of the ‘Volkgemeinschaft’ (pure German racial power in Europe); instigated his aggressive expansionist motives. Similarly, however to a lesser degree, Mussolini’s empirical motives through the revival of the Roman Empire, led him to invade Abyssinia and neighbouring countries, as did Hitler and Mussolini both had a powerfully catalytic effect on the creation and growth of tensions leading up to 1939. Their aggressive, fascist and expansionist actions inaugurates them as a focal part of the outbreak of war. Furthermore, the powerlessness of the League, intended arbiter of collective security, in preventing Italy’s Abyssinian invasion and German and Italian interference in the Spanish Civil War, allowed Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler to assert their dominance by claiming territories and extensively, militarising, thereby exacerbating European tensions. The lack of political consensus and military resources undermined any capacity for the League to enforce collective security. Additionally, failed attempts to appease Germany, allowed expansion of its’ militaristic and territorial dominance, thus heightening European animosity. The League’s intended aim of collective security failed due to the nationalistic priorities of member nations, which destroyed the possibility of mutual peace and sparked European conflict. Following 1919, the internationalist ideal of peace ensured by member nations collectively defending victims of aggression, was an impractical notion for world peace. A desire for security and national economic prosperity spawned support for Nationalist Conservatives and burgeoning fascist movements. There it is clear that both Hitler and Mussolini were highly responsible for contributing the growth of tensions in Europe.
Thus, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini’s involvement in contributing to the growth of European tensions, Appeasement was a highly critical turning point in the second world war and contributed to the growth of European tensions. Appeasement was a major foreign policy that was used with little success by nations such as France and Britain against the aggressive powers Germany and Italy. It allowed for them to develop into states that were prepared for international conflict and empowered by the apparent weakness of the international community. It allowed the aggressors to rearm and gain territorial advantage over the eventual allied powers, greatly influencing their ability to go to war during the 1940s. Appeasement during and after the Second World War has been viewed exceptionally negatively, saying that it was one of the main causes of the war. Appeasement at the time, however, did seem like the logical solution. Britain and France were in no position to go to war to defend the Treaty of Versailles after the Great Depression, and the British public viewed many of Hitler’s policies as reasonable, with him simply restoring some of Germany’s liberties as a sovereign nation. This included allowing Germany to increase its military assets through rearmament in 1935. Hitler, during the period obtained support by building upon the Western’s world anti-communist sentiments, showing that Germany would need to fend them off to prevent the spread into Europe. He also attempted to gain support through the concept of equality, saying that Germany had the right to protect itself like any other nation. This led to the Allies seeing rearmament as inevitable, rather than something that could be controlled. Similar arguments were used for conscription, receiving only a minor protest from Britain, James Levy suggests that this helped to increase Germany and Italy’s potential for war, especially through allowances such as the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1935, allowing for the Kriegsmarine to grow to 35% of the size of the Royal Navy. Had the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles been followed, war would have been inevitably prevented from occurring, thus removing the opportunity for Germany to have waged war in Europe. Historian WN Medlicott states in ‘The Coming of War’ (1939); ‘Throughout, from the days of Mein Kampf until 1944, the objective was the black-soil region of Russia and east Europe generally, as living space for German colonists’. WN Medlicott argues the line that Hitler never wavered in his long term aims but that like Bismarck, he was an opportunist, willing to change policy along the way if the situation demanded. Medlicott argues that there is a consistency in Hitler’s thinking from the days of Mein Kampf to the Hossbach Memorandum to his wartime table-talk. Therefore, it is clear that the policy of appeasement contributed to the growth of European tensions.
The principle of collective security was the great idealistic hope of the inter-war period. It was believed that the powers, working through the League of Nations, could work together to prevent aggression and the chain of events which had led to war in 1914. Collective security collapsed, unable to handle the realities of European and world politics. This collapse meant there was no means to stop the aggression of the Axis powers whose actions increased the tensions in Europe. The only response to this aggression came in the form of appeasement which was doomed to fail. The League of Nations was split into three structures including the Council, Assembly and the Secretariat. However, the League of Nations failed due to relying on the principle of ‘internationalism’, the notion that nations would sacrifice selfish national gain for the common good. The League’s aim of disarmament rested on a fatal contradiction. Article 8 called for powers to disarm to a level consistent with national safety. Collective security was unable to function die to the realities of European and world politics. The failure of collective security enabled the dictators to act without fear of any retribution. Each action of Hitler and Mussolini further acted to heighten tensions in Europe. Manchuria showed them the way.
Hitler and Stalin signed a Non-Aggression Pact due to Britain’s guarantee to Poland made a war in the west inevitable. Hopefully, Hitler would exhaust himself against France and Britain. A deal with Hitler would give Stalin a share of Poland and provide a security buffer between Germany and Russia. With Hitler busy in the west, Russia would have time to consolidate and strengthen its forces. The Soviet Union could be dealt with once the western nations had been defeated and neutralising the Soviet Union would avoid getting into the mess Germany found itself in July/August 1914. The Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact was officially signed on the 23rd of August, 1939. Germany and the Soviet Union signed a ten year non-aggression pact. This pact was significant as it was the catalyst for the German invasion into Poland. Article 2 stated; “If either Germany or Russia become involved in a war with a third power, the other would not get involved”, for example if Germany invade Poland, Russia would not intervene. Article 7 stated; “The agreement would take immediate effect”. The Nazi-Soviet Pact significantly contained secret protocols which created German and Soviet spheres of influence. Germany would receive western Poland and Lithuania. The Soviet Union would receive Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Romania. Phillip Bell states in the Origins of the Second World War in Europe; “Instead of risk a war, they could offer certain neutrality ... spheres of influence and were ready to carve up Poland .. the Germans could deliver the goods forthwith, whereas the British and French could deliver nothing. Bell poses the questions, why did Stalin choose the Germans over the British and French in August 1939. He places much of the blame on Britain’s hesitancy, lack of seriousness and its distrust of Stalin. However, he argues that the decisive reason was that Hitler offered Stalin what he wanted, and offered it immeadiatly. Stalin was involved in skirmishes with Japan in the far east. The last thing he needed was a two-front war. He sought certain neutrality and hoped for a band of states in eastern Europe which could provide some security to the Soviet state.
To conclude, it is clear that the failure of the League of Nations, the policy of appeasement and the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non Aggression Pact significantly contributed to the growth of tensions in Europe. The following factors as listed above contributed to both Germany and Italy seizing power and allowed for them to expand their empires.
Home
Help
Search
Login
