1. Jeff Moses 2017 11/7/2017

2. Germany: war and defeat, c. 1939-1945
Origins: Hitler’s aims and objectives in foreign
policy
The Nazi foreign position in 1939
Key issues: The impact of Blitzkrieg and Total War
German successes in Western Europe and
the collapse of France
The invasion of the Soviet Union
The impact of German occupation on the
people, regions and countries of Europe
The post-war settlement
Significance/
consequences
The significance and consequences of the
main developments in the war years to
1945
Jeff Moses 2017 21/7/2017

3. Jeff Moses 2017 3
Origins: 1.Hitler’s aims and
objectives in foreign policy
2. The Nazi foreign position
in 1939
1/7/2017

4. INTRODUCTION: NAZI FOREIGN POLICY
 Hitler’s main political interest lay in the sphere of foreign affairs and
much of his domestic policy was geared to help him achieve the aims of
his foreign policy. He was an expansionist. But it is difficult to be certain
as to the exact nature of his expansionist aims. Also, did he intend war or
just accept its likelihood because of his aggressive territorial actions.
 This was an area of policy-making over which Hitler ruled supreme and
rarely sought the advice of others.
 At his trial at Nuremberg in 1945-6 Hermann Goring told the court,
‘Foreign policy above all was the Fuhrer’s own realm’.
 Klaus Hildebrand wrote that Hitler ‘ treated foreign affairs as almost entirely
his own preserve’.
 Ian Kershaw concludes that ‘ There seems little disagreement..that Hitler did
take the ‘big’ decisions in foreign policy....’
YouTube - Hitler-expert Ian
Kershaw: "I never get immune to
the horrors" 1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 4

5. HITLER’S WRITINGS
Much of Mein Kampf is devoted to foreign
policy issues. On the first page he wrote:
...When the territory of the Reich embraces all the
Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a
livelihood, only then can the moral right arise,
from the need of the people, to acquire foreign
territory. The plough is then the sword; and the
tears of war will produce the daily bread for
generations to come.
Theme to which Hitler returns time and time
again:
If the German people are imprisoned within an
impossible territorial area and for that reasons are
face to face with a miserable future our people will
not obtain territory....as a favour from other
people, but will have to win it by the power of the
triumphant sword.
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 5

6. Hitler was also prepared to indicate where Lebensraum or living space
would be found:
‘History proves that the German people owes its existence solely to its determination
to fight in the east and obtain land by military conquest. Land in Europe is only to be
obtained at the expense of Russia. ‘
In Europe 1919-1938: Prelude to Disaster, the American historian J.H.
Huizinga writes:
....on January 30, 1933, the nations of Europe awoke to find themselves
confronted with a Germany now wholly different from the one with which
they had dealt in the twenties – a Germany wholly in the grip of that
lunatic fringe, openly vowed to the most barbaric cults, the most
outspoken expansionism, the most murderous racism
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 6

7. Jeff Moses 2017 7
 Recovery of Germany with its vast economic potential
and manpower always ‘on the cards’.
 Revision of Versailles and the re-emergence of Germany
as great power had already begun pre-1933.
 Under Hitler both pace and direction of foreign policy
were altered.
Up to the late 1950s it was widely assumed that the
expansionist aims of Nazi foreign policy dated from the so-
called Hossbach Conference in 1937. Hitler’s address to
the chiefs of the armed forces and to Foreign Minister
Neurath seemed to mark the turning point from a
revisionist policy to one of aggressive expansion.
Such a view is not now generally accepted.
YouTube - Hitler's Foreign Policy
Aims
1/7/2017

8. Jeff Moses 2017 81/7/2017

9. Jeff Moses 2017 9
 Hitler’s overriding foreign policy aim was to create adequate living
space, Lebensraum, through the conquest of land for the future
settlement of the Germanic people.
 To achieve this meant relocating or eliminating the inferior Slav races
then in possession of that territory, namely Poles and Russians.
 Hitler saw the Jews as the main obstacle to his plans , since they,
together with the Marxists were intent on world domination.
 He hoped that if Germany were supportive of the British Empire,
Britain would allow him a free hand in eastern Europe. He also planned
to isolate France and destroy the Little Entente.
 Hitler’s other foreign policy aims were revisionists – reversing the
injustices of Versailles and restoring German prestige with the creation
of a Grossdeutschland (Greater Reich)
1/7/2017

10. Bildarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 10

11. Jeff Moses 2017 11
Historical opinion falls into two categories, the
intentionalist and the structuralist
Historian’s views on the aims of Hitler’s foreign policy
Intentionalist/programme school Structuralist view
 Intentionalists place greatest
emphasis on Hitler’s personal drive to
carry through a pre-planned foreign
policy programme.
 Consider Hitler to have been a man of
tremendous will-power and vision whose
character and determination are the key
factors in shaping German foreign
policy.
 Regard policy as founded on a clearly
defined programme of objectives. Some
consider that his aim was to progress
towards his ultimate goal on a stage-by-
stage basis, according to a Stufenplan
( Hugh Trevor-Roper, Klaus Hildrebrand)
 Structuralists see German foreign
policy as being determined collectively
by a whole range of different factors,
some determined by the Nazi Party
and some not.
 They reject the notion that German
foreign policy was set to follow a
rigidly defined course.
 Assert that his foreign policy was
unclear, confused even, without
specific aims and that Hitler was an
opportunist – a man of improvisation
and experiment (A.J.P. Taylor)
Stufenplan a plan
carried out in
stages
1/7/2017

12. Jeff Moses 2017 121/7/2017

13. Jeff Moses 2017 13
A.J.P. Taylor caused controversy when he claimed that Hitler, like all
German politicians, simply wanted to restore Germany’s position in Europe.
He dismissed the belief that Hitler was a planner, and claimed that his ideas
were little more than day-dreaming.
In his view, the Fuhrer’s policies were determined by the course of events
and he merely took advantage of the opportunities offered him. Most
controversial of all was Taylor’s claim that Anglo-French appeasement gave
Hitler the chance to exploit Nazi expansionism.
Lebensraum, in its crudest sense, meant a
demand for empty space where German
people could settle. Germany was not
overpopulated compared with most European
countries: and there was no empty space
anywhere in Europe…Lebensraum, in short,
did not drive Germany to war. Rather war, or
warlike policy, produced a demand for
Lebensraum.
‘The Origins of the Second World War’
1/7/2017

14. Jeff Moses 2017 14
Martin Broszat argues that Nazi foreign policy
generally lacked any consistency and had a
confused variety of aims – ‘expansion without
object’. He even suggests that Hitler’s goals
were ‘utopian’ and that it was the dynamism
of the Nazi movement with its incessant
demands for change, which transformed
Lebensraum from an idea into political
reality.
Another point of view, put forward by Tim
Mason, links the evolution of Nazi foreign
policy to the domestic pressures which were
building up in the second half of the 1930s.
He suggested that it was the internal
discontent created by the constraints of Nazi
economic policy that really shaped foreign
policy. In order to maintain his own political
supremacy at home, Hitler, Mason argues,
was forced to accelerate his war ambitions in
1938-39.
1/7/2017

15. The majority of historians disagree and some are scathingly critical
of Taylor’s views. They cite what they consider as the
overwhelming evidence of Mein Kampf, of Hitler’s policy statement
made at the Hossbach Conference in 1937, the fact that Hitler
geared the German economy to the needs of his rearmament
programme and his ruthless expansionist policies.
Hugh Trevor-Roper regards Mein Kampf as a ‘complete blueprint
of his intended achievements’ and that Hitler was a systematic
thinker whose views should have been taken more seriously.
His main aim was to secure adequate lebensraum. These ideas
were more fully developed by the intentionalist or programme
school of historians.
So such a ‘stage by stage plan’ (Stufenplan) amounted to:
1. The destruction of the Versailles Treaty and restoration of
Germany’s pre-1914 boundaries.
2. The union of German-speaking peoples such as Austria, western
Poland, the Sudetenland and provinces in Hungary and Romania.
3. The creation of Lebnsraum: the establishment of a Nazi racial
empire by expanding into eastern Europe at the expense of
Poland and Russia.
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 15

16.  ‘Continentalists’ believe that planned
expansion was limited to the establishment of
a hegemony within Europe.
 ‘Globalists’ go further and support the thesis
that Hitler aspired to German supremacy in the
Middle East and Africa (in particular, at the
expense of British colonial territories) and
finally to a maritime struggle with the USA for
global domination.
Debate is speculative as it based on vague
statements from Hitler about a future world
order. Yet, on fundamentals both schools of
thought are in agreement:
 They uphold the central place of Hitler
himself in the creation of Nazi foreign policy.
 They emphasise the racialist framework of
that foreign policy.
 They view the creation of Lebensraum as the
basis for Hitler to build Germany’s status as a
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 16

17.  Alan Bullock writes that
Hitler had overall aims, but
was prepared to adapt and
show flexibility. In Bullock’s
words, Nazi foreign policy
combined ‘consistency of aim
with complete opportunism in
methods and tactics’.
 Ian Kershaw has continued
to assert that German foreign
policy was not solely directed
by Hitler’s aims and
personality, but by a range of
other domestic factors and
influences as well.
Programme school –
A title given to some
intentionalist historians
who concentrate on
Hitler’s foreign policy.
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 17

18.  The Anschluss with Austria in 1938 was a
spectacular foreign policy triumph for Hitler with
important consequences:
1. Diplomatically Britain and France were left looking
weak.
2. German access to Austria’s gold and valuable
commodities.
3. Shift in strategic balance giving Hitler a gateway
into south-eastern Europe.
 The Czech Crisis and subsequent Munich
Agreement brought further significant advantages
for Germany:
1. Access to the manufacturing and natural
deposits of the Sudetenland.
2. Reinforcement of Hitler’s position and
weakened his critics, notably Beck, who had
planned to arrest him.
3. Easier to attack rest of Czech state.
4. Isolation of Russia
Autonomy – the
right of self-
government
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 18

19. 1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 19

20. Jeff Moses 2017 20
What, no chair for me? (30th September, 1938)
1/7/2017

21. YouTube - Neville Chamberlain
addresses the crowd Another
talk with the German
Chancellor, Herr Hitler 1938
21Jeff Moses 2017 1/7/2017

22.  Expectations of a fundamental peace in the
winter months of 1938-9 evaporated quickly in
March 1939.
 In an act of unbelievable folly, the Czechs
asked Hitler for help when the Slovaks
demanded greater autonomy. Hitler heaped
threats and abuse on the hapless Czech
President, Hacha, when he visited Berlin on 15
March.
 After recovering from fainting, Hacha singed
an agreement which allowed German troops into
Czechoslovakia to restore order and so provided
Hitler with the legal basis for invading his
country. The provinces of Bohemia and Moravia
were annexed to Germany and Slovakia was
reduced to a German protectorate.
 In late March, in a further act of aggression,
German troops occupied Memel.
THE END OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA Protectorate – a
weak state that is
dependent on a
stronger one
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 22

23. Jeff Moses 2017 23
 Western democracies did not respond militarily to the
overturning of the Munich Agreement; it resulted in a few
months of peace but frenzied diplomatic activity.
 Chamberlain felt that he had been duped and so an Anglo-
French military guarantee was drawn up on 31 March 1939 to
uphold Poland’s independence. This clearly lessened Hitler’s
chances of a free hand in eastern Europe and yet, he most
definitely did not want a war with Britain and France.
 In May 1939 Hitler managed to secure an alliance with the
Pact of Steel with Italy, but this was of limited military
significance.
 It was the hope of neutralising Britain and France that drove
Hitler into the arms of Stalin. Stalin convinced that the
western democracies had no sympathy for his security fears
re-opened trade talks with Germany in July. A month later, a
10 year Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was signed.
1/7/2017

24. Jeff Moses 2017 24
 By the second half of 1939 Germany was a
formidable military power with her pride restored.
 The pact with Stalin averted the risks associated
with a simultaneous war on two fronts.
 Opposition within the military had been
contained, for the time-being.
 The German populace as a whole did not crave
war, but could not fail to be impressed at Hitler’s
astonishing foreign policy successes achieved with
such incredible ease.
 By July 1939 Hitler mistakenly believed that he
could get away with conquering Poland without
British or French intervention. This was a major
miscalculation.
 Unleashing a general war had enormous
ramifications, and German success was dependent
on her capacity to bring defeat the western
democracies swiftly.
1/7/2017

25. TERRITORIAL CHANGES, 1935-39
Source: Map 1, "Territorial Changes, 1935-1939," in Germany and the Second World War,
edited by the Research Institute for Military History, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. Volume I,
The Build-up of German Aggression, by Wilhelm Deist, Manfred Messerschmidt, Hans-Erich
Volkmann, and Wolfram Wette. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1990.
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 25

26. Why did the
Anschluss not lead
to war?
How important was
the Anschluss?
Why did
Czechoslovakia
become an
international crisis?
Why was the Munich
Agreement so
significant?
Why and with what
result did Hitler
break the Munich
Agreement?
How did Hitler hope
to avoid a conflict
while pursuing his
claims on Poland?
Anschluss
with
Austria,
March
1938
The
Czech
Crisis
1938
Poland –
the
outbreak
of war
1939
Background
Occupation
The road to
appeasement
Appeasement,
September 1938
Consequences of
Munich Agreement
Anglo-French
guarantee to Poland
Nazi-Soviet Pact
German invasion
Consequences
The destruction of the
Czech state
Key question Why did the German invasion of
Poland result in a continental war?
Key debate Did Hitler really have a war plan or was
he an opportunist ? 1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 26

27. Concentration and Extermination Camps and Major "Euthanasia" Centres
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 27

28. Europe at the
Beginning of
December 1941
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 28

29. Europe in April 1944
1/7/2017Jeff Moses 2017 29