Why Did A.J.P Taylor’s Analysis of the Origins of the Second World War Cause Such Controversy Among Historians?

Hans Mommsen’s book, From Weimar to Auschwitz, presented an interesting look at Hitler within the Nazi Party. The overriding themes in the chapter “Hitler’s Position in the Nazi System” were the stubbornness and charisma of Hitler and the chaos within the Nazi Party. The weak leadership of Hitler along with the inability to concentrate power to one position helped lead the Third Reich to be a very frenzied and unorganized government.

Bullocks’ biography instead of concentrating on only the most notable events in Hitler’s life focuses also on the events which shaped Hitler’s ideas and made him into the man he eventually became. Adolf Hitler was born and in the neighborhood of Linz, a town in northern Austria. As an adolescent he was a below average student and showed signs of laziness and an inability to function as a productive member of society. He spent two years idle in Linz, where he pondered an

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

This essay analyses the origins of the Second World War by briefly summarizing the events from 1919-1939. However, most emphasis is put on the amount of responsibility the Treaty of Versailles deserves for the outbreak of war. Other than analysing the Treaty of Versailles on its own, it also analyses the effects of the 1929 Wall Street Crash on the world, the rise of Fascism and Nazism, as well as the rise of Adolf Hitler, the failure of the League of Nations and the appeasement of the Fascist and Nazi regimes by Britain and France throughout the 1930s. Hence the Treaty of Versailles plays a

Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis is an encycladeopaedic biography of Hitler in the years 1936-1945. This source originated from Ian Kershaw, who became interested in the Third Reich in his later life. (It was published by W. W. Norton & Company on 17 October 2000.) Ian Kershaw is a British historian whose 20th century work has been considered a large contribution to historical works, due to his extensive publishing’s on Hitler. The purpose of this biography was to inform the audience on extent of the trauma that Hitler had caused. This includes the period of the Cold War, new wars in Europe and also the Holocaust which Kershaw addresses as a “question of genocide”. The other purpose of the source was to prove that the structure of the Nazi state was a main reason of the outcome of Nazi Germany (being regarded as a totalitarian state), not just Hitler himself. Kershaw believed that Germany was ultimately comprised an unstable coalition of several blocs in a "power cartel". The value of this source is that he uses a large range of evidence to back up his claims, such as the recently available Russian archives and Hitler’s recent speeches. The limitation of this source is

It is a reasonable conclusion that to Hitler, the restoration of Germany and the damning of the Treaty of Versailles, specifically returning Germany’s right to be an equal in the world society, are linked. In a speech givin at Dusseldorf Hitler even went as far as promising to withdraw the signature that indicted Germany for starting World War One. Here Hitler also draws the comparison to returning German pride with reinstating the military heritage taken in the Treaty of Versailles. These pairings that Hitler chose to address shows the direct influence that Hitler felt the Treaty of Versailles had on weakening the German people and causing a separation from their heritage after 1919. These ideas of Hitler were not unfounded. He claimed in his speech at Munich 1922 that Germans were burdened at the end of World War I with an 8 million mark debt of their own, and the debt of the other allied countries, with similar sentiment in other speeches . The actual treaty confirms this by showing a 10+ billion mark reparations clause in section 232 right after the War Guilt Clause . A scholar by the name of Graham Darby claims that the treaty of Versailles is not the primary cause of the economic downturn and therefore not a primary influence on Hitler’s economic policy. The data however, points to one crucial fact that Mr. Darby neglects to mention in his article, the Dawes Plan. The Dawes plan was enacted during 1924 and

The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the

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.

Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in

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

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.

Even though Germany was left in a period of struggle and economic weakness after WW1, Adolf Hitler would take a stand by creating a party that would help refine the structure of the economy. This party, when abbreviated, was called Nazi, would also create harsh laws and unrelentless punishment. Due to the Nazi party’s quick growth, there was an immediate impact on lifestyle and politics for the people of Germany. The long term impact brought forth by the consequences or legacy of the Nazi party included a population decrease and an increase in deaths. To make both of these impacts, Hitler had to overcome many hard challenges.

When considering historians accounts on whether Hitler was a “Weak dictator.” due to his erratic ineptitude as a leader or whether he was actually “The Master of the Third Reich.”, it’s essential to look upon the historians argument and whether it’s credible or not. With a look at the differing historian’s views it’s evident that there’s clear difference between the historians viewpoints; some portray Hitler to be a lazy and reluctant decision maker and was merely “One extreme element of the extensive malevolence that was the Nazi system.” Whereas others argue that Hitler had reached a state of absolutism as he controlled all areas of Nazi government and thus tailored a social Darwinist bureaucracy which was driven to implement his world view” . Both sides of the argument can be divided into two different aspects: Some historians argue from an ‘Intentionalist’ viewpoint where Hitler had total control whereas others would argue from a ‘Structualist’ viewpoint thus suggesting Hitler didn’t have full control due to his poly-cratic style of leadership and there was more than one element of rule within Nazi Germany.

The rise and subsequent take-over of power in Germany by Hitler and the Nazi Party in the early 1930s was the culmination and continuation not of Enlightenment thought from the 18th and 19th century but the logical conclusion of unstable and cultural conditions that pre-existed in Germany. Hitler’s Nazi Party’s clear manipulation of the weak state of the Weimar Republic through its continued failure economically and socially, plus its undermining of popular support through the signing the Treaty of Versailles all lead to the creation of a Nazi dictatorship under the cult of personality of Hitler. This clear take-over of power and subsequent destruction of any

German history is seen as a ‘painful issue for thousands of Germans and other Europeans’ . However it has interested many historians over the years into inquiring how and why Hitler came to power and how much of this was to do with the failure of parliamentary democracy in Germany. To fully ascertain to what extent these events have in common and what reasons led to the fall of democracy and rise of the Nazis, each have to be looked at individually. Also it seems beneficial, to be able to evaluate these in the relevant context, to look at the situation in Germany was in prior to 1920.