The first : - Hitler proclaimed that 1943 was a year for action. The Second : - Civil war in France had began “ ..the time for action against the Czechs had come.” - Hitler. The Third : - War between France and Italy occurred “ our objective must be to overthrow Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously” - Hitler.
Taylor states simplistically “ None of these cases came true; clearly therefore they do not provide the blue print for German policy” - A J P Taylor ‘The Origins of the Second World War’ pg 169. This point is the greatest factor in the argument that Hitler never created a blue print nor did one exist. Although this is a strong point for the oppurtunistic argument , there is of course a relevant counter-argument. Although none of these situations came true , is it possible Taylor is viewing this example too narrowly, in that Hitler still may have had a blue print for expansion of the Reich and these examples were just scenarios integrated into this plan. Is it not possible to have a blueprint for objectives but have allowances in this grand plan for favourable situations? Although this speech can have numerous interpretations , Taylor seems to be taking out of this speech what he can to support his argument and not contemplating other scenarios.
In interpreting Taylor’s argument the second factor that Taylor really pushed towards his readers was the Czechoslovakian crises.’ Czechoslovakia consisted of numerous ethic minorities above all Germans ( around three million). The German’s heard “...the call of nationalism” (- Taylor ‘ The Origins of the Second World War’pg190) and saw there united Germany growing powerful and united over their boarders. It seems within the historical community the general consensus that the German- Czech’s wished to join the German empire but also wished to stay in there homeland. Taylor believes strongly that Hitler did not create this movement it merely grew stronger as Germany grew stronger. Hitler introduced foreign policies that in essence supported the leaders of the German faction in Czechoslovakia. He appointed a chain of leadership , giving the Nazi party in Czechoslovakia structure. By using this faction of Germans Hitler built a strong organization of Nazis in Czechoslovakia which would aid Germany in its time of expansion.
Taylor uses the Czech situation to portray Hitler as a leader which merely turns situations to his advantage rather then creating them. Again , seemingly arguing the opportunist line. Mr Taylor presents a very one-sided argument that although not in relevance to the question , an argument that seems to have embedded in its depth a humble sympathy for Hitler. Covering this sympathy is a line of argument that is very persuasive towards Hitler having no ‘blue print’ for global or European domination but more an intelligent man that grasped the opportunities presented to him.
Some of the strongest points for the oppurtunistic argument are found in Hitler’s early conversations with individuals. This is the case with a Hermann Raushning. Hitler had a conversation this man in 1934 on Nazi foreign policies. “ Do you seriously intend to fight the West? What else do you think we’re aiming for? I said that i thought this would surely call forth a hostile coalition against Germany which would be too strong for her. ‘ That is what i have to prevent. We must proceed step by step, so that no-one will impede our advance. How to do this I don’t yet know...” This conversation between Hitler and Hermann is very convincing in Hitler not having a plan but a set of goals. There is little to no information about the source so questions immediately arise whether the man was Nazi sympathizer. It seems odd that Hitler would have no clue as to how he was going to destroy his possible opposition but still this source seems very influential in supporting the oppurtunistic argument. one of the main arguments for Hitler planning expansion was the ongoing arms build up.
In 1935 Hitler abrogated the Versailles Treaty in a speech which gives relevant insight into the arms build up. “ The German government must , however , to its regret, note that for months the rest of the world has been rearming continuously and increasingly. It seems in the forcing of similar measures in other states further proofs of the refusal to accept the disarmament ideas as originally proclaimed....In these circumstances the German government considers it impossible still longer to refrain from taking the necessary measures for the security of the Reich or even to hide the knowledge thereof from the other nations..”
In 1920 the German Workers’ Party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party ( or the Nazi party ). It also published its manifesto. Policies two and three portray particular relevance to the topic at hand. “ We demand....the revocation of the peace treaties. We demand land and territory ( colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.”
Hitler and the Nazi’s always had the premise objectives to
expand German territory by principally demolishing the rearmament restrictions. “ For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East and making food supplies secure , and also solving the problem of the Baltic states.” - May 1939, Adolf Hitler. For Germany to gain more land mass war was inevitable , preferably against the East. Of course the sixty year old debate still wages whether Hitlers goals were world domination or simply parts of europe he felt were rightfully his. Hitler was aware of the inevitable war and a series of foreign policy’s over six years began to lead and prepare Germany for war. The question arises and has been a subject of constant debate, whether these foreign policies where planned before hand or opportunistic? Two reputable historians have presented strong arguments for and against the statement. A J P Taylor presents an argument that Hitler “ did not make plans- for world conquest or anything else. He assumed that others would provide opportunities and that he would seize them.” - A J P Taylor ( The Origins of The Second World War ). A J P Taylor takes an extremely one sided view on Hitler and his foreign policies. H. R . Trevor- Roper is tipped to the other side of the spectrum , he puts forth an aggressive critique on Mr Taylor’s notable work dismissing his view as poorly researched and prematurely dismissing evidence that sways against his view. Mr Trevor- Roper presents an alternate argument to Mr Taylor that like Mr Taylor arises a strong argument. The contemporary historic community seems fairly divided with a slight slant towards a more structuralist approach. In the later parts of the analyses the two fundamentals of the arguments will be presented with a personal conclusion drawn.
In essence Mr Taylor has striped himself of all emotions towards the Germans , entering a plain of neutrality , where he feels by studying the raw documents and sources of the period he can best draw conclusions about the events that unfolded. It is in these documents and sources that his critics mostly draw fuel to attack his personal conclusions. Mr Taylor’s opportunist opinion arises from his assessment of Hitler as an individual. Hitler is presented by Mr Taylor as a man with objectives an a great deal of patience. A leader who took advantage of a situation , seeking neither war nor a unrightful territory. This is in essence the character that the opportunist argument believes Hitler to be. Mr Taylor is of firm opinion that Hitler was not about global domination ( and in some cases nor is the ‘programme’ line ) but wished the expansion or union of Smaller central European states such as Austria and Czechoslovakia. One of Mr Taylor’s strong factors in denouncing a blue print or ‘programme’ for German expansion, is a discussion between Hitler and his senior advisors and commanders in on the 5th of November 1937. The statements made by Hitler are known as the ‘ Hossbach memorandum ’ named after the man who wrote it. Taylor speculates that this is suppose to contain Hitler’s plan’s so hence the historical significance of the statements. On the 5th of November Hitler called a conference in the Chancellery. It is recorded that the participants were Neurath ( the minister of war) , Fritsch ( the foreign minister ) , Raeder ( commander in chief of the Army) and the commander in chief of both the air force and navy. Hitler began discussing the need for Lebensraum ( land or territory), particular area’s were not specified but he stressed that particular gains had to be made. Hitler released as already discussed that forced would have to be used to acquire such territory. The question remained how and when was this force going to be asserted? Hitler presented three different scenario’s. One ( 1943-1945 ), Hitler proclaimed that 1943 was a year for action. Two , Civil war in France had began “ the time for action against the Czechs had come.” - Hitler. Three, war between France and Italy occurred “ our objective must be to overthrow Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously” - Hitler. The General way in which point one was quoted adds to support the non-planned scenario of Foreign policy. Taylor states simplistically “ None of these ‘cases’ came true; clearly therefore they do not provide the blue print for German policy” - A J P Taylor ‘The Origins of the Second World War’ pg 169. This point is the greatest factor in the argument that Hitler never created a blue print nor did one exist. In interpreting Taylor’s argument the second factor that Taylor really pushed towards his readers was the Czechoslovakian crises’ significance in proving again that no plan existed but more importantly Hitler merely used situations to his advantage the spark if you will was always there. Czechoslovakia consisted of numerous ethic minorities above all Germans ( around three million). The German’s heard “...the call of nationalism” (- Taylor ‘ The Origins of the Second World War’pg190) and saw there united Germany growing powerful and united over there boarders. It seems within the historical community the general consensus that the German- Czech’s wished to join the German empire but also wished to stay in there homeland. Taylor believes strongly that Hitler didn’t create this movement it merely grew stronger as Germany grew stronger. Hitler introduced foreign policies that in essence supported the leaders of the German faction in Czechoslovakia. He appointed a chain of leadership , and that they should create demands that are undeliverable to the Czech government. This almost immediately sprang politicians around the world into a frenzy , scenario’s worked though , alliances re -evaluated. In the end of the twists and turns England and France tell Germany to demand more, which as Taylor describes it takes Hitler quite by surprise. Taylor uses the Czech situation to portray Hitler as a leader which merely curves situations to his advantage rather then creating them. Again , seemingly arguing the opportunist line. Mr Taylor portrays a Hitler throughout his works that attempts to avoid conflict , a clever man who turns a ‘constant’ until it meets his ideological objectives. Mr Taylor presents a very one-sided argument that although not in relevance to the question , an argument that seems to have embedded in it’s depth a humble sympathy for Hitler. Covering this sympathy is a line of argument that is very persuasive towards Hitler having no ‘blue print’ for global or European domination but more an intelligent man that grasped the opportunities presented to him.
The ‘programme’ or planned argument also presents a credited argument. Sifting through the people that support Hitler having a clear plan , the most notable and persuasive seems to be H. R. Trevor-Roper. His argument is logical yet simple. In times Taylor seems to be confused himself when writing often contradicting earlier statements but Mr Trevor-Roper is most coherent. A prime example of Taylor’s contradictory and confusing nature is a page where Taylor is discussing a possible plan of Hitler’s. “ There was no concrete plan, no directive for German policy in 1937 and 1938.” Yet just the next paragraph Taylor states “...but now Schacht was jibbing at further expansion of the re-armament programme.”( pg 170 O O 2nd WW) Doesn’t the very nature of the words re-armament programme suggest a greater plan of Hitler’s or some sort of a minut plan. Taylor should have integrated into the point his opinions on the reasons that Germany had this programme as to not confuse the reader.
The ‘programme’ which Mr Trevor-Roper presents is one of “Eastern Colonisation, entailing a war against Russia.” Hitler’s aims were for Germany to be the superpower in Europe and if it was necessary have the ability to conquer the West as well. Hitler had to rebuild Germany to carry out these actions , both military and economy.
Trevor - Roper counter-argues the ‘Hossbach Memorandum’ Taylor uses but to argue the planned argument. On November 5th 1937 Hitler summoned his war leaders ( as already discussed in greater detail in the opportunist argument) to hear his last will and testament. . Mr Trevor-Roper uses this speech as evidence for Hitler’s plans of expansion through Europe. Mr Trevor-Roper has great support in his view of the speech because like Mr Taylor seems to forget , the speech was used at Nuremberg “....as evidence of Hitler’s plans for gradual conquest of Europe.”( The Origins of The Second World War - H.R. Trevor-Roper.) Hitler proclaimed the aim of Germany was for Lebensraum . “German politics” he said , “Must reckon with two hateful enemy’s , England and France, to whom a strong German colossus in the centre of Europe would be intolerable.” “ The German question can only be solved by way of force and this is never without risk.” Hitler than described a conquest in terms of Austria and Czechoslovakia “...the annexation of the two states to Germany, military and politically.” Though Mr Trevor-Roper dwells on this issue minutely , the significance is quite clear. Hitler seemed to have a plan or clear agenda which was cloaked to a certain point in this speech but when studying the war itself it becomes quite clear. Unlike some of Hitler’s earlier scenario’s this came true. Germany did merge with Austria and Czechoslovakia which seems to constitute Hitler having a plan in this sense. Surely if Hitler realizes Germany must conquer Austria and Czechoslovakia he would thus have planned for it. . Although Hitler’s words seem to constitute a plan either being present or in the process of being made the way in which Germany did finally merge with Austria and Czechoslovakia as already discussed suggest Hitler did not plan but turned a situation to his advantage. Hitler watering the seed of Nationalism in these countries seem to have been how he unified them. The important thing to not though is that the seed was already there in the form of the 3 million Germans.
The next example to support the planned argument , is crisis that lead to the outbreak of World War Two. By this time both Austria and Czechoslovakia had been conquered both militarily and politically. There was no other option for further land gains than subsequently through Poland. The oppurtunistic argument falls limp here , because there were no opportunities presented to Hitler. How (as Mr Taylor would put it) could Hitler turn a situation like this to his advantage when there was no situation to turn? Hitler has no choice but to plan , deviously, his foreign policies so that he can invade Poland. And of course he makes a pact with Russia that he feels will keep him safe form English- French involvement. Hitler as Mr Trevor-Roper believes had no choice but to plan for the invasion of Poland as he could not take advantage of a helpful situation like in Czechoslovakia. This point is further supported by Hitler stating “ there will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland....It must not come down to a simultaneous showdown with the West.” This point clearly highlights the already obvious that planning is taking place and will take place on domestic and foreign policies to ensure that Germany does not end up having to battle the West to achieve it’s outcomes.