Analysis of P.H.M Bell's book The Origins of the Second World War in Europe

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Moscato

There are many theories as to the origins of World War Two, ranging from Nazi Germany’s aggressive expansionism, to the idea that World War Two was not a Second World War at all but simply a continuation of the First World War. The author P.H.M Bell gathers a collection of theories about the causes of World War Two and presents arguments on all sides of the spectrum. While it is clearly evident that Bell interjects his own opinion, all sides are clearly examined. In P.H.M Bell’s book The Origins of the Second World War in Europe there is no emphasis on a single person or event, but rather the unstable foundation of Europe left by World War One and the opposing ideologies and expansionist policies of the countries involved.

Bell`s examination of the thirty years war thesis allows an examination of both sides of the argument. Bell insists that regardless of which side is right, both provide insight to the causes of World War Two. In chapter two of part one, Bell describes the Thirty years war thesis. The First World War left many unsolved problems in Europe, as well as great psychological, material and political effects. The war severely reduced the population of many European countries causing many people to question why the war occurred in the first place. The war also shook the economies of the fighting countries. Many sectors began to fail, which led to huge financial problems. “It was the removal of the landmark of a stable currency which had the most lasting effects, psychological as much as material.” After the war the currency of many countries began to diminish. The countries began to feel the effects of inflation and many had to sell what they could to get by. “Britain and France were forced to sell substantial quantities of their foreign investments to pay for the war...” (Bell 17). The increased inflation led countries such as Britain and France to sell large parts of their foreign investments. The countries that had no foreign investments were left to find other ways of supporting themselves. This financial pressure allowed the idea of communism as a viable alternative to the democracies of Britain and France to be considered by its citizens. The idea that Britain and France would align themselves with a communist country such as Russia, gained credence because the citizens of Britain and France began to consider communism as viable alternative to the status quo during the economic distress of post World War One Europe.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The situation in Germany was equally daunting. The Treaty of Versailles provided such harsh penalties for Germany that the country was left in a stressful state in terms of its economy during this period. Many income gathering areas such as the Rhine were given to France and other victorious countries. In addition to this Germany was forced to pay reparations which caused further economic pressures. With all of this money exiting Germany there was little left to help sustain its people. Germany was in a period of dire straits and had no viable way of recovering from the war due to the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. This resulted in many semi-revolutions, and led to the rise of the new German republic. It is clear that the economic realities of post World War One Europe left the citizens of the countries involved in the conflict wondering if peace was really sustainable. The fighting may have ended and treaties may have been signed but day to day reality meant that poverty and despair were now a fact of life. Peace seemed like a false sense of security. The reality of the new order Europe was not really sustainable over the long term, especially when the economic realities of the countries are taken into account.

In Bell’s book several European powers, as well as the ideologies that make them different are examined. The differences in ideologies ranged from Italian Fascism to British and French parliamentary systems to the emergence of the Nazi party in Germany. These ideologies determined the scope of alliances would be feasible in Europe. France and Italy for example, were diametrically opposed in ideology and thus no alliance could be formed. Nazism and Fascism were similar in approach, both being radical authoritarian solutions to the depression thus the natural alliance that occurred between Hitler and Mussolini. Many were in favour of these authoritarian ideologies at the time of the depression because the Parliamentary systems failed to provide a solution and thrust the countries that embraced them into depression. Russia although being communist found itself ideologically less opposed to Britain and France. The ideologies that were paramount resulted in a triangle with each ideology opposing the other two. It became apparent that in order to defeat one a tactical alliance was necessary “Ideology thus produced lines of division which ran within states as well as between them, so that in almost every state in Europe there were individuals and groups whose first loyalty was to an idea rather than to their country – and often to another country which embodied the idea.” (Bell 58). The ideologies of the European countries were so dramatically opposed there was little room for persuasion and compromise. It was clear that if another conflict did break out whichever ideology happened to emerge as victorious would clearly have to force its style of government onto the countries it annexed. Conversely, in past European conflicts in which the combatants were of similar ideologies the prospects for the defeated country and its citizens were not as daunting. Political boundaries would change, perhaps economic situations would be different but day to day life among average citizens really would not be very different than before the war. The realities facing Europe were now very different; clearly the victor in this war would not only gain land and status but have the means to change the political and social ideologies of the citizens. Conflict was no longer simply about expansionism and economic gains but now became a drive for political ideology.

The rise of Hitler to power in Germany can be attributed to the pre-existing economic and political difficulties that were manifested in Germany as a result of World War One. Hitler believed the fall of Germany in World War One was caused by the disaffection of the masses.

If Germany had fared better in the war, it is unlikely that the German population would have been as accepting to the radical beliefs of the Third Reich. The dissatisfaction with the statlus quo meant that Hitler was able to bring the Nazi party into power in Germany and incorporate many of his own ideas into the party. When Hitler first joined the Nazi party, the party was on the fringes of the political spectrum in Germany. Much of what he wrote in Mein Kampf was critical of Germany and the way that the First World War was fought. “As for Britain, Hitler was highly critical of pre-1914 German policy, which has failed to choose between an anti Russian stance with British support, and an imperial-cum-naval anti British stance, with Russian support.” (Bell 92). Unfortunately, much of what was written was also ignored and dismissed. The economic realities of Germany at the time made the citizens view Hitler in a positive light and his ideas became the symbol for a possible turnaround in the depression that was gripping the country. Hitler recognized the opportunity to seize power and to gain control over all the aspects of German society. Hitler set out to further entrench his power by invading other countries. He began by securing the land taken away from Germany as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, such as the Rhine. Hitler understood the underlying political climate in Germany. He realized that many Germans resented the peace treaty that had been signed and understood that the citizens of Germany were not happy with their plight after the war. Hitler successfully played on the underlying national pride of the German people. Not only was Hitler seen as a leader who would fix the economy, but he would also bring Germany back to the power in the European order that it had enjoyed before World War One. After obtaining the Rhine, Hitler expanded further into countries such as Austria and Poland. “The folkish state... must under no conditions annex Poles with the intention of wanting to make Germans out of them someday. On the contrary it must muster the determination either seal off these alien radical elements, so that the blood of its own people will not be corrupted again, or it must without further ado remove them and hand over the vacated territory to its own national comrades.” (Bell 89). Hitler’s motives were two fold. He did not want increase the population of Germany, but rather increase the size of his country so that the German people could have more room to live and become prosperous once again. Hitler’s idea of expansionism was to secure territory but not people. Even though he was expanding the borders of the country by invading his neighbours, he was not interested in having those he annexed become members of his movement. Hitler was in fact moving Germany into a period of isolationism. He was trying to control his people and even began to eliminate those within Germany who did not fit into his master plan for a superior race.

Bell provides many theories as to the causes of World War Two. Bell suggests that the premature ending of World War One as well as the repercussions to the losing side, left an unstable environment with the possibility of future conflict. Bell also insists that the rising of new authoritarian ideologies would cause opposition. Finally, Bell stresses the problem with Adolf Hitler’s expansionist ideas. Bell references Mein Kampf, a book written by Hitler describing his ideas for a future society. It is Bell’s contention that the fact that the book was not taken seriously and dismissed contributed to Hitler’s rise to power. If the book had been given more attention, perhaps the events that preceded the start of the war could have been avoided. In the end, the origins of World War Two cannot be traced to any single event or individual. Rather the war began due to a culmination of events and the interaction of individuals within those events. The alignment of events and individuals that preceded the war was unprecedented in history. World War Two was inevitable because the War to end all Wars was a failure.