Aggression of Hitler (& Mussolini) Fault of Britain & France

1. Analysis: Causes of the Conflict – Arguments that have been put forward as to the outbreak of WWII Aggression of Hitler (& Mussolini) Fault of Britain & France Circumstances of 1930 gave leaders no alternative to policies Failure of Collective Security & League of Nations Failings of Individual Statesmen

2. 1. The outbreak of war was the fault of Hitler (and to a lesser extent Mussolini) Germany Prior to Hitler Coming to Power

3. Justification that Hitler had little to no respect for International Agreements

4. AFTER THE WAR Germany “The war & the camps? It was Hitler & the Nazi’s, not our fault” AFTER THE WAR British “We did all we could to avoid war, look at Munich” • Evidence that supported the above view • The Holocaust - Liberation of the Concentration Camps (at the end of the war) • Documentary Evidence as to Hitler’s Guilt - Mein Kampf  his intentions were spelt out; Hossbach Memorandum; minutes from the Wansee Conference • Aggressive Actions - Continual breaking of his word “I have no further territorial demands” All these reasons prove that Britain & France had no choice but to fight in 1939

5. 2. The outbreak of the war was the fault of Britain & France Hitler’s aggression cannot be questioned Reason behind war The weakness shown by other powers that allowed Germany to grow in strength through one aggressive act after another

6. Examples of British Government’s inaction • German rearmament – justified – name of equality & a fear of communism • Hitler’s territorial claims – justified – unfairness of Versailles Treaty • British Armed forces allowed to run down – reached a point by which standing up to Hitler was not an option • Chamberlain’s refusal to work with the Soviet Union – Stalin no other choice but to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact • Neglect of British defences in the 1930’s – lucky to stave off defeat in 1940 • View easy to argue • Self-evident nature of the examples of inaction • Opponents of appeasement (Churchill in particular) dominated historical debate after the war

7. 3. The circumstances of the 1930’s gave western leaders no alternative to the policies they pursued Condemning Appeasement was simplistic Didn’t take into account the following Baldwin & Chamberlain deserve credit rather than ridicule • Attempting to maintain peace • preparing for war against the odds

8. Evidence to support view • Britain’s strategic burden (1919-1939) – Commitments  North Sea to Palestine to Singapore • Military warned leaders that Britain could not take on Germany, Italy & Japan simultaneously – logical approach was appeasement (reduce potential enemies) • Economic restraints restricted British options in dealing with Hitler • Chamberlain’s actions reevaluated – more positive British passing the 30 Year Rule (1967) opened classified information Traditional British Foreign Policy Approach • Before 1914 – Britain kept out of European affairs - gets involved when Germany’s plan to dominate the continent became clear • Before 1939 –Britain attempts hands-off approach - reluctantly involved when Germany’s plan to dominate Europe became clear

9. 4. War resulted from the failure of the principle of Collective Security & the operation of the League of Nations • Collective Security based on principle of INTERNATIONALISM relied on the sacrifice of national interests for the common good • Factors in the inter-war period prevented this from eventuating • Caused by forces of nationalism • Propaganda encouraged acceptance of nationalism • Death & destruction  bred desire of security & revenge WWI prevented the principle of Internationalism from flourishing Growth of far right nationalistic thinking & dictatorships

10. The League of Nations • Needed INTERNATIONALISM to succeed • NATIONALISM was the driving force • Votes in the assembly & council needed to be unanimous • Disarmament encouraged – consistent with national safety  where one country was slightly stronger than its neighbour (self-interest rather than the greater good) • Issues excluded from Leagues jurisdiction  powers feared for their national interests

11. 5. War started in 1939 due to the failings of individual statesmen “ … history is about activities of people not abstractions. Of course people make decisions within a context … But this context does not act as some directing or determining force. What makes history is the human capacity to exercise reason and thought.” GR Elton • Hitler & Mussolini • Less than honest dealings, duplicitous • Opportunism  did little create peace and a healthy international environment (Stalin was also in that position) • Britain did not possess strong decisive leaders • Baldwin admitted not pushing rearmament (1935 election)  public wouldn’t accept it • Rather than strengthen the League over Abyssinia  Hoare & Mussolini  The Hoare-Laval Plan • Chamberlain’s insistence in pursuing appeasement  no alternatives bypassing advice of ministers and diplomats • Lord Halifax still trying to deal with Hitler in May 1940