Discuss Hitler’s eventual gaining of Lebensraum. Was it merely opportunistic or astutely planned?
I.S History Essay Question: Discuss Hitler's eventual gaining of Lebensraum. Was it merely opportunistic or astutely planned? The argument that Hitler's objectives were to expand the Reich is one that cannot be argued against. 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 ; "We demand ....the revocation of peace treaties. We demand land and territory to feed our people and settle our surplus population." Again 17 years in an address known as the 'Hossbach memorandum' Hitler stressed his goal that gains in land mass must be made. There can be no argument that Hitler and the Nazi's were primarily seeking land. Hitler's eventual gaining of land around Europe is a subject of ongoing debate. Did Hitler plan the expansion of the Reich or was this goal of his carried out by fortunate circumstances. It essential to concentrate on Hitler's own words to gain insight into this question. This essay will focus on two reputable historians who have strong arguments for and against the question at hand. 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." H. R. Trevor- Roper has put forth an aggressive critique on Taylor's notable work 'The
Trotsky - Succession, Revolutionary Success, Civil War Hero, Death, Failure and End
Did Trotsky deserve to succeed Lenin? It is a common view amongst the uninitiated that Stalin was a relatively unknown and insignificant figure in Russian history until Lenin's death in January 1924. Trotsky, Lenin's brilliant accomplice and civil war hero, seemed to be the natural replacement for Lenin. It therefore comes as a surprise to many that Stalin managed to outmanoeuvre the 'vastly more talented and deserving Trotsky'1 to become Lenin's successor. However, it is on this issue of Trotsky being the more "deserving" of becoming the supreme power in Russia that much controversy surrounds. Despite the fact that 'no one else in the leadership came anywhere near him as a public speaker'2 and that he clearly 'excelled as a commentator, a critic, an orator, an executor of politics and was the ideal complement to Lenin'3, by 1929 Trotsky had been denounced as a Jew and a 'Leftist' by Stalin and the Central Committee. Once a Civil War hero and respected commander of the Red Army, the man who had been beside Lenin during the October Revolution of 1917, Trotsky found himself relieved of his position as War Commissar and robbed of his position in the Politburo by Stalin and his loyal bureaucracy. Stalin had become 'strong enough to expel Trotsky from the USSR'4, irrespective of Trotsky's supposed superiority as a politician and as a candidate for supreme power in Russia.
To what extent was the contribution of Bismarck to German unification the most important factor?
To what extent was the contribution of Bismarck to German unification the most important factor? Bismarck contributed to the German cause; he encouraged and followed through the making of German unification. However, although he was the most important factor he was not the only factor. There were political movements, economic progress sand changes in the monarchy that also contributed towards German unification. The king was about to abdicate: "I have there for resolved to lay down my crown," the king however did not follow this through. If he did it would have been a complete victory for the liberals. Instead of giving up, he appointed a new chancellor to change things; the chancellor was Otto Von Bismarck. Bismarck was the kings last hope of success. He saved the king from a parliamentary crisis, the king was eternally grateful, from then on took Bismarck's advice, and fully trusted him to run his country In every situation that arose Bismarck assessed it and exploited it to his own means-his aim was to unite Germany as a successful and powerful nation. One example of this was with the Danes. When the London protocol was broken by the Danes and the duke of Augustenburg. He did not care for the duke but saw an opportunity to expand Prussia. In 1863, Prussia and Austria signed a military alliance; they then sent an ultimatum to the Danes threatening invasion if the Danes
How united was Italy after 1861?
Jonathan Clay How united was Italy after 1861? The idea of unification can be expressed in two different ways. The Italy can be unified geographically or in a national sense. However, in 1861 Italy seemed to be neither of these. The kingdom of Italy was created in 1861 but Italy as a geographical expression was still incomplete. However, the only two states not included in the kingdom of Italy were Venetia and Rome. This was the case after garibaldi successfully conquered Sicily and the south of Italy, but at the same time Cavour travelled done from Piedmont with an army to stop Garibaldi but joined and practically united the kingdom of Italy. At this time Rome seemed to be more of a priority than Venetia. This is because Cavour hoped that he could persuade Napoleon to withdraw from Rome thus enabling the 'united' Italy to control Rome. However, Venetia seemed less likely at this point since it would undoubtedly lead to war against Austria. In 1862 Garibaldi decided to gather volunteers and march on Rome. He had support from the Prime minister (Rattazi) and the king and gathered 2-3 thousand volunteers in Sicily and crossed over to the mainland. However, the prime minister and king of Italy were worried as this could lead to political repercussions and sent a Piedmontese army to stop Garibaldi's force. Consequently, Garibaldi was stopped at Aspromonte with a weak army
'The Revolution in 1905 was the result not of insufferable conditions but of irreconcilable attitudes' How far do you agree?
'The Revolution in 1905 was the result not of insufferable conditions but of irreconcilable attitudes' How far do you agree? Immediately it must be said that the 'insufferable conditions' in Russia - predominantly the poor living standards of the working class - did also play a significant part in Revolution coming about in 1905, contrary to the implication of the above statement. That said, the 'irreconcilable attitudes' of the Tsar and the government also had a large part to play. On Bloody Sunday the Tsar was not present at the Winter Palace to deal with the trouble. While it isn't possible to tell whether his absence made the eventually, bloody result of the march on the Winter Palace any more or less likely, it is clear that his handling of the situation was poor. He should undoubtedly have been there, in the nerve centre of politics, at a time of such social tension and, furthermore, he only exacerbated the situation after it had happened by having the audacity to forgive the marchers when clearly it was the government who had overreacted to what was a peaceful protest. And Bloody Sunday was not the only occasion when the Tsar called in violence to enforce his will. He consistently used violent repression as a way of holding onto his power, going so far as to use live ammunition against civilians at the smallest sign of trouble. All the while he refused to place any
To assess whether the Kulturkampf was a complete failure, the original aims have to be noted and compared with the final result. The three central aims of the Kulturkampf include decreasing the Zentrum's power
Was the Kulturkampf a complete failure? To assess whether the Kulturkampf was a complete failure, the original aims have to be noted and compared with the final result. The three central aims of the Kulturkampf include decreasing the Zentrum's power, decreasing the influence of the pope, and finally to increase state control - something of which the other two aims were based around. At first glance the failure of the Kulturkampf seems very clear and apparent - perfectly depicted in the opposite effect of the anti-catholic campaign. However when looked at in more detail its obvious some elements of the Kulturkampf seem to remain well after the end of the Kulturkampf. Bismarck's, and not surprisingly the Kulturkampf's biggest aim of increasing state control turned out to be relatively the most successful of all aims in the Kulturkampf. Bismarck's personal drive enabled him to utilise the support of his future enemies - the national liberals- to gain significant support in the Reichstag. Although the decision to launch the campaign was Bismarck's alone; he did however have enthusiastic support from the National Liberals. Different in their motives, but with a common goal of objecting Catholicism, they united and throughout the 1870's this relationship turned out to be vital in retaining Bismarck's control of the Reichstag. These minor successes can however be countered by
The nature of Stalin's dictatorship.
The nature of Stalin's dictatorship. On the death of Lenin, Trotsky was expected to take over as leader of the Soviet Union. He had played a key role in the civil war, and had been named by Lenin as his successor. As we know, this didn't happen. Stalin became leader of the communist party. He managed to manoeuvre the political situation until he eventually became a dictator. Stalin used many different methods to secure himself complete and absolute dictatorship of the Soviet Union. I am writing this essay answer to attempt to identify and explore some of these methods. Stalin set out to convince the population that he was a great man, a good leader and a genius. He tried to portray himself as someone that was looking after the entire Soviet nation, a father figure for the entire nation. He also tried to show himself standing side by side with the working population. Posters were published of Stalin standing proudly amongst a group of coal miners. Stalin was shown in portraits and photographs meeting working people, although Stalin hardly in fact left the Kremlin. Stalin was also shown in posters as a god-like figure, standing as a giant, towering over soviet tanks and planes. These helped Stalin to gain more and more power over his people. Everyone believed every word that Stalin uttered, after all, who were they to argue with a god? All soviet art and literature that had
The Rise of Stalin
0/05/07 Tim Gloster The Rise of Stalin . The Sixteenth Party Congress: The Sixteenth Party Congress met to adopt Stalin's new industrial and agricultural policy. Bukharin was identified as leader of the right opposition and denounced for his 'non-Marxian theory that the kulaks will grow into socialism, and his failure to understand the mechanism of the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat'. The right was now in full disarray. One month after the Congress Stalin announced that instead of a policy of limiting and exploiting the activities of the kulaks the policy would now be to liquidate them as a class, effectively declaring war on the peasantry. 2. The policy of "Socialism in One Country" This policy stated that Soviet Russia could successfully build socialism on its own. It put priority on strengthening the international position of the Soviet state, even at the expense of world revolution; this policy had much to offer the party faithful. The point of the policy was to make Trotsky appear disloyal and defeatist. This was unfair on Trotsky but it had enough truth pave the way for bigger lies, slowly pushing Trotsky out of the picture and making Stalin more powerful. 3. Bukharin and the right of the party. Stalin used Bukharin and the right as allies in 1925 in order to defeat Zinoviev and Kamenev. Stalin's policy on the kulaks at
Lenin; a Pragmatic Marxist or Power Hungry?
Tse, 1 Richard Tse Mr Keys IB History 20 March 9, 2005 Lenin; a Pragmatic Marxist or Power Hungry? After Lenin, in 1921, introduced his New Economic Policy (NEP) many Bolsheviks began to question his intentions and motives. His followers felt he had betrayed his original communist ideal of Marx and Engel's, and began to favour capitalist ideals. It appeared to many that once in power all he was concerned with was maintaining his position of power at whatever costs; even if it meant abandoning his Marxist ideas. Those who doubted Lenin were foolish and unable to see his true intentions. The New Economic Policy of 1921 was simply a required phase within Lenin's plans to rejuvenate Russia's economy, so she later could be transformed into a communist state. During the Civil War, Lenin implemented, War Communism, a policy which practiced communist ideals. That is where factories , all workers and private property were under government control. Peasants could not profit from any surplus; it was to go to the government. The food was rationed unsympathetically. By the end of the WWI and the Civil War Russia was in a detrimental state. Many of the peasants saw no point in producing a surplus because it was all given to the government anyways. Famine and starvation were very common. In 1921 sailors at Kronstadt, were not satisfied with the Tse, 2 poor living condition war
Hitler's address to the Reichstag
Hitler and World War Two Hitler's address to the Reichstag Because of his experiences in Vienna, World War One, the Münich putsch and in prison, Adolf Hitler dreamed of building a vast German Empire sprawling across Central and Eastern Europe. Lebensraum could only be obtained and sustained by waging a war of conquest against the Soviet Union: German security demanded it and Hitler's racial ideology required it. War, then, was essential. It was essential to Hitler the man as well as essential to Hitler's dream of a new Germany. In the end, most historians have reached the consensus that World War Two was Hitler's war. Unfortunately, although most western statesmen had sufficient warning that Hitler was a threat to a general European peace, they failed to rally their people and take a stand until it was too late. In this respect, you could argue that the responsibility for World War Two ought to remain on the shoulders of Britain, France and the United States. Following 1933 -- the year when Hitler consolidated his power as Chancellor through the Enabling Act -- Hitler implemented his foreign policy objectives. These objectives clearly violated the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. Hitler's foreign policy aims accorded with the goals of Germany's traditional rulers in that the aim was to make Germany the most powerful state in all of Europe. For example, during World
