Transcript Document

ORIGINS OF WORLD
WAR TWO
5. Early German breaches of Versailles (1933-6)
What did Hitler do?
•Fulfilling his election promises to tear up the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler made a number of
moves in 1933-6 before his decisive move into the Rhineland (1936) he:
• withdrew from the League of Nations and Disarmament Conference (1933);
• tried unsuccessfully to stage a pro-Nazi coup in Austria (1934);
• won a plebiscite on the future of the Saar, which voted 90% to be German (1935);
• announced German re-armament, including an air-force (1935) and conscription (1936);
• agreed an increase in Germany’s navy with Britain (1935), allowing Germany to have as
many submarines as Britain, and 35% of its ships (Anglo-German Naval Agreement)
How did Hitler’s enemies react?
In only two cases was there serious opposition to these moves. First, Mussolini’s
objections prevented Hitler taking over Austria in 1934 (he later did this in 1938, sheet 7).
Second, Italy, France and Britain formed the Stresa Front in 1935 in response to rearmament to demonstrate their concern. However, for the most part, these countries
either made token protests or even endorsed Germany’s moves (the Anglo-German
Naval Agreement was a British agreement to Germany re-arming, contrary to Versailles).
The USSR’s response to all of this was finally to join the League of Nations in 1934.
Why did his enemies do so little?
In some cases, Hitler did nothing wrong. For instance, the Saar plebiscite was part of
Versailles - it was only Hitler’s propaganda that was problematic. In other cases, Britain
and France were motivated by distraction from domestic problems (e.g. Depression),
sympathy for Germany, feeling that Versailles was too harsh (e.g. why should Germany
alone be disarmed?) and cynical calculation (Britain was happy for Germany to re-arm its
land forces, provided it did not challenge the Royal Navy, thus the Naval Agreement).
Significance: Hitler’s early moves were relatively small, and mostly non-territorial.
However, they set a powerful precedent for revision of the Treaty of Versailles, making it
more difficult for Britain and France to object on principle to later revisions (e.g. Rhineland
re-militarisation (1936) and Anschluss (1934)). Only Italy and the USSR stood up to Hitler
in any meaningful way.
Past paper examples:
• Describe how Hitler took over the Saar and Rhineland in 1935-6 (6 marks)
ORIGINS OF WORLD
WAR TWO
6. Rhineland Re-militarisation, 1936
What was the problem?
The Treaty of Versailles had de-militarised the Rhineland: the strategic stretch of German
territory between the Rhine river and the French border. Allied occupation had ended, but
Germany was not allowed any troops there.
What did Hitler do?
On 7 March 1936, he marched a small army into the Rhineland to re-militarise it. They
had orders to retreat if challenged by France (which they weren’t). Having done this, the
border with France was swiftly fortified, to consolidate this gain.
What was the British and French response?
This was a clear breach of Versailles, as well as the 1925 Treaty of Locarno, and Hitler
expected France to react with force, as in 1923 when a late reparations payment had led
to the Ruhr occupation. However, Britain and France made weak verbal protests and did
nothing. The League of Nations condemned the action, but did nothing.
Why did they do so little?
Both powers were pre-occupied with events in Abyssinia (see sheet 4), which also
reduced the League’s appetite for doing anything and its credibility. Britain felt sympathy
for Germany being unable to place troops in its ‘own backyard’, and was unwilling to fight
over this. French forces were organised in a defensive rather than an offensive way
behind the Maginot Line forts, making a response difficult. France was also politically
unstable, as it was throughout the 1930s.
Significance: The Rhineland is a key precedent for further German aggression. It was a
vital part of the Treaty of Versailles, effectively giving France a physical barrier (the Rhine)
against the German army. Letting Hitler re-militarise with so little protest was a clear signal
that Britain and France would not oppose further action. Some (e.g. Churchill) see the
Rhineland as a missed opportunity to confront Hitler: his army was weak and clearly in the
wrong. However, in Britain and France, public opinion was firmly against confrontation
over this issue.
Past paper examples:
• Which made world war more likely: Abyssinia or Rhineland? (10 marks)
• Describe how Hitler took over the Saar and Rhineland in 1935-6 (6 marks)
ORIGINS OF WORLD
WAR TWO
7. Anschluss with Austria, 1938
Why was Austria important to Hitler?
He was Austrian, and wanted all Germans united in a Greater Germany. He also wanted
to overturn the Treaty of Versailles, which forbade Anschluss (German/ Austrian union).
What happened?
In 1934, Hitler had tried and failed to orchestrate Anschluss via a pro-Nazi coup, after
having Austrian Chancellor Dolfuss murdered. Italy forced him to back down. But by 1938,
he was allied with Mussolini due to working together over Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil
War. Hitler encouraged the Austrian Nazi party to demonstrate violently for Anschluss.
The Austrian Chancellor resisted, promising to hold a referendum, but Hitler’s
mobilization of his forces led to the chancellor agreeing to appoint an Austrian Nazi in
charge of the police. This led to a crackdown on opponents, and to a German occupation
and annexation on 14 March, greeted by cheering crowds of Austrians. His move was
endorsed by a rigged referendum.
How did other countries react?
Italy supported Hitler, as noted above. Britain and France issued the same kind of weak
protests as over the Rhineland, choosing to believe Hitler’s promise that his actions had
no implications for Czechoslovakia - a country now surrounded by German territory. Once
again, neither Britain nor France felt that they could or should intervene with military force
in a German country to prevent National Self-Determination (Germans being ruled by
Germans), not least given the increasing strength of the German military.
Significance: This was Hitler’s first large territorial gain (the Saar (1935) being small, and
the Rhineland (1936) being part of Germany already). It made it much easier for Hitler to
continue with his aggression towards the borders left by Versailles, both geographically
(as he now surrounded his next target, Czechoslovakia) and politically (as he now had a
precedent for territorial change to unite Germans). Britain and France allowed him to set
this precedent with virtually no protest: each time they did this, the German army was
stronger next time, as was the principle that they would allow him to revise the Versailles
Treaty. But even before Austria, the Rhineland had clearly given him this signal.
Past paper examples:
• Which was a greater threat to world peace: Manchuria or Anschluss? (10 marks)
• What does Source A (not shown) tell us about the Anschluss? (3 marks)
ORIGINS OF WORLD
WAR TWO
8. The Sudeten Issue (Munich Conference), 1938
What was the Sudetenland and why was it important?
It was an area on the borders of Czechoslovakia largely inhabited by ethnic Germans. The
border had been drawn in the Treaty of St Germain, 1919 (Austria-Hungary’s Treaty of
Versailles). It contained much industry and strong mountain defences against Germany.
After Anschluss, it was surrounded by Germany. France and the USSR had treaties to
defend Czechoslovakia in the event of attack.
What happened?
As in Austria, Hitler used a local party (Henlein’s Sudeten German party) to stir up trouble.
Riots in May 1938 were put down by the Czechs, but Hitler increasingly backed their
demands for self-determination. After a failed attempt at mediation between them and
Benes’s Czech Government by Lord Runciman (British), Hitler promised more support.
This led Neville Chamberlain, British PM, to fly to Germany to try and negotiate a deal to
avert war by dealing directly with Hitler. He agreed a deal that allowed the transfer of
some territory, and managed to get the French and Czechs to agree this. But Hitler upped
his demands at a second meeting, and war looked inevitable. Then Mussolini proposed a
four power conference to resolve this, which took place at Munich (29-30 September).
This agreed a modified plan to transfer Sudeten areas to Germany, which took place from
1 October - a day when Britain and Germany signed a new peace deal.
Why did Britain pursue this course?
Chamberlain feared another war like the First World War, and did not see why Britain
should fight to prevent National Self-Determination for Sudeten Germans. Britain was not
ready for war, and could not have prevented Czechoslovakia being overrun. It was not
clear at the time that Hitler’s wanted more than just to unite Germans. Critics of this
‘appeasement’ policy (e.g. Churchill) saw it as a cowardly missed chance to fight Hitler.
Significance: There is a heated historical debate here. Some see Chamberlain as the
betrayer of a small democracy, postponing war to Britain’s disadvantage and being fooled
by Hitler. It was particularly cynical to exclude Czechs and Russians from the Munich
conference. It encouraged further aggression (e.g. in 1939). Others see it as a policy that
made sense at the time, when Hitler’s ambitions were not clear, and that it gave Britain
vital time to re-arm (e.g. the RAF).
Past paper examples:
• Describe how Chamberlain prevented war in September 1938 (6 marks)
• Which was more important in Hitler’s success: Versailles or appeasement? (10 marks)
ORIGINS OF WORLD
WAR TWO
9. Invasion of Czechoslovakia / Polish Guarantee (1939)
What happened?
Having taken the border defences of Czechoslovakia via the Munich deal of 30
September, the rest of Czechoslovakia ‘lay naked’ before Hitler’s armies (Churchill’s
words). On 12th March 1939, Hitler invaded the rest of the Czech portion (Bohemia and
Moravia), claiming to have been invited in. The rest was split up into a supposedly
independent state (Slovakia) and territory for Hungary.
What was the response from Britain and France?
Both were shocked by this blatant breach of Munich and of the principle of National SelfDetermination. At first, Chamberlain appeared to be trying to hold onto his old policy. But
pressure from public opinion (e.g. newspapers) and Cabinet colleagues seems to have
persuaded him that enough was enough. Within a few days (31 March), Chamberlain had
agreed a joint Anglo-French military guarantee of Poland, Hitler’s obvious next target
(German grievances about Danzig, Posen, Upper Silesia and West Prussia were among
the most bitter resentments about Versailles). This treaty, which was reaffirmed just days
before World War Two, is widely seen as being the end of Appeasement, and the treaty
which brought Britain and France into World War Two, when Poland was invaded by
Germany in September 1939.
However, as with Czechoslovakia, Britain and France were not geographically able to
defend Poland: they needed an ally nearby. The obvious candidate was the Soviet Union.
But Britain and France failed, over the summer of 1939, to persuade Stalin to join their
Polish guarantee. Instead, in August, he signed the Nazi-Soviet pact (Sheet 10) which
guaranteed Russian neutrality in the face of the inevitable German attack on Poland.
Significance: With the invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia, Hitler clearly departed from
the much-supported principle of National Self-Determination, by taking over an area that
was not full of Germans. At this point, it became clear that his goal was to win
Lebensraum (Living Space) in the East, of which this was a first step. Thus, Britain and
France finally saw Hitler’s true colours and stood up to him, by guaranteeing his likely next
victim. This can be seen as the first step towards inevitable war, and the end of
appeasement, which had failed.
ORIGINS OF WORLD
WAR TWO
10. Nazi-Soviet Pact (August 1939)
What were relations normally like between Nazi Germany and the USSR?
Very cold. They hated each other’s ideologies. The Axis pact between Italy, Japan and
Germany was actually called the ‘Anti-Comintern’ Pact, to combat the influence of the
Comintern organisation. The USSR joined the League of Nations to fight fascism.
What happened in 1939?
At the end of March, Britain and France guaranteed Poland against Hitler (see sheet 9).
They then tried to get the USSR to join this guarantee, with various missions going to
Moscow over the summer. Historians differ as to whose fault it was that agreement was
not reached. Instead, on 23 August, a Nazi-Soviet Pact was unveiled.
What did the pact say?
The public part was a non-aggression treaty between Germany and the USSR. The secret
element of it agreed a division of Poland, so that when Germany invaded from the West a
week later, the USSR soon followed to swallow up Eastern Poland.
Why did Stalin and Hitler sign it?
Hitler’s motivation is more obvious. As a cynical, deceptive politician, it suited him to fight
a war on just one front, leaving Russia till later (1941, Operation Barbarossa). Stalin did
seem to consider an alliance with the West. But he suspected that Britain and France
wanted him to bear the brunt of the fighting, and thus for Russia and Germany to destroy
each other. In the end, Hitler had more to offer Stalin (peace and Poland) than Britain and
France, which remained capitalist countries, suspicious of the USSR and opposed to its
ideas. Stalin was also still angry with the West for leaving the USSR out of the Munich
conference, and had just appointed a more cynical Foreign Minister (Molotov) to replace
the more pro-Western Litvinov.
Significance: The Pact made war inevitable, as it meant that Germany could invade
Poland without fear of the USSR retaliating (especially given the rewards promised to the
USSR in the secret element of the deal). This, coupled with the Anglo-French guarantee
of Poland, ensured a World War would begin when Hitler invaded Poland ten days later.
Past paper examples:
• Which event made war more likely: Czech invasion or Nazi-Soviet Pact? (10 marks)
• Which was bigger threat to peace: Rhineland or Nazi-Soviet Pact? (10 marks)