Nazi Aggression Planned Or Improvised?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Feature Nazi aggression planned or improvised? Hendrik Karsten Hogrefe Historians have tried for decades to understand how far A copy of the first edition of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. the Second World War was planned by Hitler. Much has been written and debated as to whether or not Hitler’s ideas evolved into an overall blueprint, which he intended to follow. Hendrik Hogrefe considers the extent to which Mein Kampf and the Hossbach Memorandum have been used by historians as evidence of a Hitler blueprint, and how valuable these sources may be in studying German foreign policy in this period. ince the 1960’s, there have been two main schools of thought on this subject. According to the ‘fanatic’ view, expressed by historians like Hugh Trevor- SRoper, Hitler aimed consistently at expansion and war. His Lebensraum policy has been emphasised since the days of his imprisonment, and naturally struggle and war were seen to be vital to its success. Trevor-Roper believes Hitler had a clear vision that involved a master plan for war and he completely controlled the events that culminated in his attack on Poland in 1939. The evidence for this interpretation comes from Mein Kampf and, according to Trevor-Roper, the ideas expressed in Mein Kampf and the Zweite Buch – Hitler’s secret book which was never published – are the keys to understanding German foreign policy after 1933. However, some historians suggest that these books only express broad aims that Hitler still held when he became Führer. The ‘opportunist’ view has been expressed most controversially by A.J.P. Taylor. He argues that Hitler had no blueprint for aggression. Instead, he was an astute and cynical politician who took advantage of the mistakes and fears of other leaders and his apparent fanaticism was an act. According to this view, Hitler was in the mainstream of traditional German foreign policy, which had been expansionist since the second half of the nineteenth century. Taylor claims this is a development of the arguments of German historian Fritz Fischer who maintains that Germany was expansionist from before 1914 and that there was continuity in German foreign policy aims up to 1939. According to Taylor: “The foreign policy of National Socialism merely re stated the German Hitler accepts the ovation of the Reichstag announcing the ‘peaceful’ acquistion of Austria. It set the stage to annex the Czechoslovakian Südetenland, largely inhabited by a German- speaking population. Berlin, March 1938. National Archives and Records Administration 6 The Historian / Winter 2011 Nazi victory parade, Warsaw, Poland. 5 October 1939. United States Federal Government Problem.” ideas for the recovery of Germany as all, have in mind only Russia and its To an extent these two views have a major power after the humiliation of subjugated border states.” This action been reconciled. The synthesised and the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. of gaining Lebensraum was bound to balanced view can be found, among D.G. Williamson acknowledges the provoke a conflict with Poland and others, in the writings of Alan Bullock importance of Mein Kampf, emphasising Russia. The dreams of an optimal who maintains that Hitler had a that, while the document does not alliance policy also expressed in Mein consistency of aim and that it “never specifically state future policies, it Kampf strongly suggest that alliances changed from its first definition in Mein expresses ideas that have inherent links should be forged with England and Italy Kampf.” However, Bullock claims there with his plans for the future. However, it in order to outplay France. was never a definite blueprint to achieve would be illogical to assume that Mein Mein Kampf ’s reliability is this aim. Hitler was an opportunist in his Kampf was a precise plan of action for unquestionable, although not in terms methods, and also in his effort to restore Hitler’s foreign policy once he was in of what the policy actually consisted of German military power, expand its power after 1933. Hitler could not be during the period, as it was written a frontiers and create living space. Bullock certain in 1924 that he would ever have decade before Hitler had the power to also claims that he was an opportunist in the power to implement such policies. turn his dreams into reality. However, his firmness of purpose, strong will and Hitler’s long term aims in foreign as a stimulus for future policy Mein readiness to threaten, bluff, gamble and policy were to expand Germany’s Kampf is reliable as it was written by the fight to achieve these aims. According borders and to gain “Lebensraum,” same man who instigated the policies to Bullock, opportunism was Hitler’s and this meant eastward expansion. being studied. Equally important weapon in fulfilling his aims. While he He clearly states this vision in Mein in determining the reliability of the may have employed time limits, using Kampf and the intended direction of this alternative interpretations of the book what Bullock calls “one at a time tactics,” expansion was also made abundantly is the consideration that the original he never used a timetable. clear: “We put a stop to the eternal was written in German. Translation into Mein Kampf is a mixture of movement of the Germanic people English lays open the risk of altering and autobiography and political philosophy. to Europe’s South and West and we misunderstanding the original text in It contains Hitler’s ideas and beliefs, and turn our eyes to the land in the east.” some ways. For example, the translator he writes about issues concerning the More specifically: “In speaking of new of the Pimlico edition, Ralph Manheim, German race and nation, as well as his territory in Europe, we can, above states: “There are certain traits of Hitler’s The Historian / Winter 2011 7 Feature Hitler announces the Anschluss to 200,000 Austrians in the Heldenplatz, Vienna, 15 March 1938. Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive), Bild 183-1987-0922-500 style that are peculiarly German and in oratory rather than in writing. For adapted previous ideas as circumstances do present a problem in translation”. Hitler there was little hope his writing changed. This therefore suggests that He goes on to state: “No non-German would win over great support. This is Mein Kampf may not be the most would write such labyrinthine sentences” largely due to the fact that Mein Kampf valuable source from the point of view of and that Hitler’s writing is cluttered is “lengthy, dull, bombastic, repetitious what actually happened in foreign policy with “useless little words like: wohl, ja, and most of it extremely badly written”. during the period. Only when used in denn, schon, noch, eigentlich,... which Bullock shares the view of numerous conjunction with other sources does he strews about quite needlessly”. These historians who are quick to highlight the one see the real value of Mein Kampf words have no English equivalent and weaknesses of the writing, its literary in determining where the stimulus for are, therefore, lost in translation. inconsistencies and poor construction. Hitler’s foreign policy originated and for A study of the German version of Due to Hitler’s inarticulation, care must seeing how close he came to achieving Mein Kampf and the English translation be taken when analysing Hitler’s words, his aims. confirms that Manheim’s ‘useless ensuring that what he was expressing Hitler disliked writing and so little words’ indeed make a material was what he really felt at that moment there are no vast files of Führer difference in a German sentence. They in time. Any false interpretation in correspondence for historians to study. can underline and accentuate certain this area may reduce the value of Mein He made no margin comments on statements, which makes them appear Kampf as a source for the study of official documents, but preferred to more direct and powerful. Their Hitler’s foreign policy. Nevertheless, the discuss problems unofficially with close presence makes a strong difference historian J.C. Fest places much value on friends. It is therefore very difficult to to Hitler’s intended meaning. This this source by going so far as to state: trace the development of his ideas for is, however, only something that the “the work contains an exact portrait of the future. He distrusted his diplomats German reader can perceive. These little its author”. He also summarises Mein and by the late 1930’s did not keep a words are usually employed orally and Kampf as “partly an ideological tract, diary and wrote few private letters or do not normally appear in written texts partly a plan of action ... it nevertheless memoranda. Consequently, historians as often as in Mein Kampf. The South contains much involuntary truth”. Fest are left with Mein Kampf and the Germans and Austrians are especially therefore suggests that in writing Mein few existing records of confidential addicted to these ‘little words’, and they Kampf Hitler exposes some of his ideas addresses in the 1930s to high- can be found in almost every one of for future foreign policy. In the preface ranking party officials, businessmen Hitler’s sentences. This is one factor of the 1943 edition Hitler claims that and army commanders. Of these, the that removes some authenticity from the book was a plan, or as he put it, the memorandum written by Colonel the working English source. However, “aims” of Nazism. On the other hand, Hossbach is of special significance. This the core language of the English version the claims of “opportunist” historians controversial document, known as the still provides an insight into Hitler’s like A.J.P.