Germany (Source): In light of differing interpretations, how convincing do you find the view that the outbreak of the Second World War was a result of ‘blunders by Hitler and his opponenets’?

Introduction

• The debate as to the outbreak of the Second World War is split between intentionalists and functionalists/structuralists

• Hitler always intended war vs it was a by-product of his overall aims

• Extract 1 argues for it being a mistake, Extract 2 for it being a risk

Paragraph 1

• Argues that Hitler was more concerned with not being overshadowed by the USSR

• ‘Hitler had not much time if he was to escape being overshadowed.’

• USSR producing 3,000 tanks per year by 1939, Germany = 1,000

• Also argues that Hitler was simply playing at diplomatic tactics with rearming

• ‘Hitler’s rearmament was only intended to reinforce a diplomatic war of nerves.’

• Discredited by Lebensraum, wanted to resettle 10m Germans in Eastern Europe, major war is the way to achieve this

Paragraph 2

• Argues that Hitler would achieve domination through any means necessary

• ‘Limitless in its aims to achieve domination’

• Demonstrated domestically, 8m forced labourers

• Argues that Hitler would have been prepared to accept war, as the risk was so great

• ‘Hitler would have preferred Britain and France to remain inactive, but the risk was so obvious that… he was ready to accept war’

• 1.5m German troops sent to disrupt Anglo-Polish alliance of 1939

Paragraph 3

• Main debate between Extract 1 and 2 is mistake vs risk

• ‘But, though he often talked of such a war, he did not plan for it.’

• ‘A miscalculation on Hitler’s part’

• Was clearly prepared to take the risk, Germany had 4.5m mobilised soldiers

• Also a debate around the intelligence of Hitler and its role

• ‘He did not plan for it’

• ‘He was ready to accept war with them if they were prepared to support Poland.’

• 3,000 tanks deployed to invade Poland