Germany and the Cold War

The Four Big Factors and how they link

First, what are the four Big Factors?

• The Treaty of Versailles
• Hitler
• Appeasement
• The Nazi-Soviet Pact

Why is the TofV a key factor?

• No German accepted it
• It was referred to as the ‘Treaty of Shame’ and a dictated peace: the ‘Diktat’
• But France was determined to ensure its provisions were upheld
• Though the successor states that bordered Germany and included millions of Germans amongst their populations (Czechoslovakia and Poland), were too weak to stand up to Germany on their own
• Hitler achieved power partly because he promised to smash the treaty
• Britain, increasingly uneasy with the treaty itself, appeased Hitler in his unlawful revision of it

Why is Hitler a key factor?

• He had fought bravely in WW1 and felt bitter about the TofV
• He had risen to power determined to smash the TofV (*the 1st link)
• Once secure in power, he set about doing so: rearming, remilitarising the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, taking the Sudetenland and then the rest of Czechoslovakia, and finally taking Poland
• He was also set on securing more living space for Germany (lebensraum) and smashing communism

Why is Britain’s policy of Appeasement a key factor?

• Because it seemed to support the German view that the TofV was unfair
• Consequently it undermined the TofV (*a 2^nd link)
• But it only served to encourage Hitler (*a 3^rd link)
• And it left Stalin worried that perhaps the Western powers weren’t strong enough to stand up to Hitler (and so were not worth allying with) and perhaps even wanted a resurgent Germany so that it could attack Russia (*leading to a 4^th link)

Why is the Nazi-Soviet Pact a key factor?

• Because Poland was the line drawn in the sand as far as Britain and France were concerned. Hitler would not be allowed another act of aggression without facing the consequences.
• But a pact with Russia meant that if Hitler’s bluff was called (and he didn’t think it would be), then he would not be facing a war on two fronts and so he attacked Poland
• Whereas for Stalin, looking at Britain’s policy of Appeasement and reaching the conclusion that it had negative consequences for Russia, a deal with Hitler at least bought him time which could be used to prepare for war (*the 4^th link)

• To what extent can the Treaty of Versailles be blamed for WW2?

   

  That there is a clear link between the Treaty of Versailles and WW2 is pretty clear. Certainly, the 1920 cartoon ‘Peace And Future Cannon Fodder’ by Will Dyson, an Australian who had been an official artist on the Western Front but who was working for the Daily Herald, a left-leaning British newspaper, in 1920, leaves us in no doubt as to what he, and the Daily Herald, thought. And we should note that the cartoon was published at the time the terms of the treaty became known so the cartoon is an immediate reaction to those terms and the conference that had produced them.

   

  It is a famous cartoon and you will find it in many textbooks and it has been used in past exam questions.

   

  The cartoon has the title, ‘Peace And Future Cannon Fodder’, and shows David Lloyd George, Vittorio Orlando, Georges Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson, the British, Italian and French Prime Ministers and the American President, as they leave the Peace Conference. We can deduce this because they are leaving a grand building and there is a copy of the terms of the treaty discarded on the floor.

   

  Hidden from the Big Four is a child weeping who we can presume has read or heard the terms. Above the child are the words: “1940 Class”. Because the child is weeping we are also encouraged to presume that he is German (though in truth he could also be from any of the Big Four’s countries). He is weeping (and he is a “he”) because the terms of the treaty are harsh on Germany and because, being the “1940 Class”, he will be graduating that year and is expecting to face another war in which he will be the “cannon fodder”, i.e. amongst the troops to be slaughtered by the deadly artillery of WW2 as they had been in the recent war.

   

  The caption at the foot of the cartoon reads: “Curious! I seem to hear a child weeping” It is attributed to “The Tiger”. Clemenceau’s nickname was ‘the Tiger’ which gives a clue as to his personality. He had earned the nickname because of his determination in resisting the German attack. And it was known that he had made the strongest argument to treat Germany harshly.

   

  That it is such an off-hand remark leads us to think that Clemenceau in particular, but the Big Four collectively, haven’t really thought-through the likely long-term consequences of such a harsh treaty. In particular, that it would certainly anger Germans and could well lead to another world war.

   

  This cartoon is pointing to the Treaty of Versailles as the cause of a likely future war. It shows us how astute political cartoonists were (and still are today). The message they send out to their readership is, in its details, subtle (but can be deduced with some background knowledge) but its overall message is pretty clear.

• To what extent can the Treaty of Versailles be blamed for WW2?

   

  The arguments that point to the Treaty of Versailles:

   

  • The treaty shocked and angered all Germans
  • It shocked many other contemporaries too
  • Hitler gained support because he condemned the treaty and promised to destroy it
  • By rearming, remilitarising the Rhineland and joining with Austria he did as he had promised
  • And by getting away with it he went further (the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia)
  • He then turned his attention to Poland and that led to WW2
  • We can also add that the successor states created by the treaty, eg Poland and Czechoslovakia, were not made strong enough to resist a revitalised Germany

   

  Other factors that must also be considered:

   

  • British Appeasement (though this is also linked to the treaty)
  • The Nazi-Soviet Pact
  • The treaty could have been revised peacefully (something Stresemann had done to some extent)
  • Hitler’s policy of lebensraum was not directly related to the treaty
  • Neither was his racially motivated disregard for Slavs
  • Neither was his determination to smash communism

Was Hitler a planner or gambler?

This is a classic approach to Hitler’s role in the causes of WW2, covered in books and exam papers. Here my intention is not to cover the arguments on each side of the debate. I cover it in my own e-book on the causes of WW2 and it is well covered in any number of books. What I intend to is to look at what lies behind the issue of planning and gambling, and tie this to the debate about “Hitler’s war”.

Let’s begin by stating the obvious. It is usually very important and is often overlooked. First of all, planning means there must be a plan. The closest we have to an overall plan is found in the pages of Mein Kampf – revision of the Treaty of Versailles, lebensraum, smashing communism, it’s all there – but it is more a set of aims than a plan. However, planning also means that you are in control of events, being proactive rather than reactive, and this Hitler certainly was. So it can still be argued that he was planning, but step-by-step (rearming, remilitarisation of the Rhineland, Anschuss, the Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia, Poland) rather than with a plan for world domination in its entirety.

Gambling on the other hand is a matter of chance. And even Hitler realised that the remilitarisation of the Rhineland was a huge gamble. With no certainty of the outcome. In diplomacy or war this is always the case though, as in gambling, the odds will vary a lot according to a variety of factors. Here we can say that the odds were more in Hitler’s favour with regard to Anschluss, the Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia and at least as Hitler thought, Poland.

But there is also an element of reacting to events in gambling, and Hitler did this too. For example, the remilitarisation of the Rhineland was undertaken whilst the world was more concerned with Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia.

So, how does the debate unfold?