R. J. Overy

Germany and why it has gone through First World War has been subject of debate among scholars, academics and historians. Several documents have been analyzed in order to understand the subject and aims of Germany were when it went on war. Wide ranging literature is available on the subject, which concentrates on discussing the start of World War I. History is based on evaluation and examination of facts. The

Decisions for War, 1914-1917 by Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig investigates the origins of the First World War detailing individual country’s reasons for entering the war. Historians at War by Anthony Adamthwaite explores how scholars have understood the origins of the Second World War throughout varying times and differing national view points. Both works share a common theme of determinism; a retrospective notion placed on historical events by historians that Europe was inescapably predestined to go to war and that nothing nor anyone could inhibit that. Both remark that this popular approach does a disservice into the explanation of war as it does not accurately depict the economic and social agency present in Europe at the time. In

One major, controversial event that occurred during the WWII was the Holocaust. There has been much debate about the causes of the Holocaust, as many factors have been discussed. Therefore, this investigation will assess to what extent was Hitler the cause of the Holocaust. The four factors that will be assessed will be the widespread anti-Semitism, the role of Hitler himself, the demonizing of Jews made by the state churches and the Treaty of Versailles.

On June 28th 1919, in the Versailles Palace of France, the treaty of Versailles officially ended World war one. The signers of this treaty implemented certain restrictions on Germany that were to guarantee Germany would never start another world war. This begs the question, “what did the end of one war have to do with the start of World War Two?”. The evidence shows that it was this treaty’s influence on Adolf Hitler that led to the Versailles Treaty’s ultimate failure and provoked the start of the next world war. Because of this treaty Adolf Hitler’s economic plan, proposed while he was seeking political election, was focused on rebuilding and reclaiming Germany. This went hand in hand with the nationalist ideas of the Nazi party.

Through the book ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ David Fromkin tackles the issues of pre WWI Europe, and the surrounding political, economic, social, debacles that led paranoid countries to go to arms after nearly a full century of relative peace within the European continent. While Fromkin certainly points his fingers to all the nations of Europe his primary focus lies with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Though he continues to stress throughout much of the book that Kaiser Wilhelm II and Archduke Ferdinand were fervent keepers of the peace within their nations, the fault of the war ultimately could be laid at the feet of their two nations and their constant attempts at war-mongering. He claims the war could have been avoided for the moment, had all the nations of Europe wanted peace, but the two bad eggs of Europe drew them all into an unavoidable general war.

As I’m sure most people know Adolf Hitler was the leader of the Germans from August 2 1934 to April 30 1945, but do you know that as Fuhrer of Germany he was the driving force behind the start of WWII. During his reign he tried to bring Germany back to the powerful country it had been before the First World War. In this paper I will prove that Hitler’s actions lead to start of WWII, and I plan to prove how his direct disregard of the Treaty of Versailles pushed the world into WWII.

Many historians argue that the reason for Germany going to war was due to the aggressive behaviour of Germany in the build up to the war. Throughout this essay I will be addressing this issue looking at whether Germany was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914. There are many factors which contribute to the outbreak of the war from a short-term trigger such as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to the long-term annexation aims Germany implemented in the years building up to the war, the most important reason was Germany’s aggressive foreign policy, they had provided

Prior to the First World War, Europe was the world center of industry and capital. Massive death, destruction, and resentment after World War I left most countries unable to recover to a normal existence and damaged the world economy. The economic collapse and the political instability caused by World War I eventually led to the rise of fascism in Europe. Forceful dictators in Italy, Germany, and Japan took advantage of these problems to seize power by territorial expansion. These events caused a major repositioning of world power and influence. This paper traces a variety of significant factors and forces that contributed to the outbreak of World War II.

In the first chapter, “No Easy Answers” Adam analyzes the events that lead up to World War II. This analysis describes the events beginning from the French Revolution to the next hundred years, that led to World War II. Adam emphasises, the “folklore version” of World War II is too simplistic, meaning many accounts do not cover all the different stances of  the war (1). The version that is simplistic which only covers one side roughly without its entirety.  He describes the events that led up to the war by describing the occurrences in three key states: Italy, Japan and Germany. The

Changes were happening all over Europe between World War I and World War II, and the book Europe in the Era of Two World Wars highlights a lot of them. Volker Berghahn, the author, discusses how violence escalated all across Europe during this time frame. The book digs into the desires and upsets of countries like Germany, Britain, France, and Russia, during war times more than others I have read do. Economies of each country and the escalading violence are the main focuses of the book. In the following review of Berghahn’s work, Europe in the Era of Two World Wars, I will highlight why the author is qualified to write the book, and survey the strengths and weakness of the information he provided.

Richard Overy’s book “Why the Allies Won” is a great read for those who are intrigued by World War II alternate histories. Overy gives unique insights on the large scaled picture regarding how the war went throughout each of his chapters. The book identifies that the resulting Allied victory was not inevitable, and then it points out the factors that contributed to making the Allied victory possible.

To uncover the origins of the Second World War is a difficult task and to summarize it, even more so, but this is exactly what historian P.M.H. Bell does in his astounding book The Origins of the Second World War in Europe. Although Bell does a great job of providing accounts on both sides of the debate on the origins of the Second World War, he does have his own mindset about it. In his eyes, Bell sees the Second World War as being a thirty year war, driven by the ideology and economics of Germany, which was not preplanned by blueprint. He outlines this very clearly in the conclusion of his book, basing it on knowledge that he interlaid throughout.

For quite a number of reasons, World War II was largely inevitable. In this text, I will take into consideration some arguments that have been presented in the past in an attempt to demonstrate the inevitability of the Second World War. These arguments range from the creation of the Treaty of Versailles to the conditions imposed on Germany to nationalistic issues. Many historians consider German's invasion into Poland the official commencement date of the Second World War.

The Pity of War, argues that the British decision to intervene in this total war is what stopped Germany from its victory in 1914-15. Moreover, I disagree with the interpretation of some German historians point of view of the cause of

“In war there are no winners, but all are losers” (Adamthwaite, 1977: 63) declared Chamberlain. Indeed, neither Chamberlain nor Daladier could understand why would any country risk war at a price of peace. Neither could the public, who believed that Hitler sought only territory inhabited by German-speaking people, and this was proclaimed acceptable. After all, the British public opinion was not in favour of war for a country and people, as Chamberlain himself stated, “of whom we know nothing” (Boyce, 1989: 249). However, Hitler had never been particularly interested in helping the over three million people of German descent living inside Czechoslovakia (Weinberg, 1988: 167) and was using them as a pretext to crush the country he had so hated. He staged incidents within the Sudeten territory (Weinberg, 1988: 168-169) and deliberately placed the ill-treatment of the Germans in the Sudeten at the centre of the German publicity and diplomacy as to make it politically impossible for Britain and France