The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J.P. Taylor, proposes and investigates unconventional and widely unaccepted theories as to the underlying causes of World War Two. Taylor is British historian who specialized in 20th century diplomacy, and in his book claims that as a historian his job is to “state the truth” (pg. xi) as he sees it, even if it means disagreeing with existing prejudices. The book was published in 1961, a relatively short time after the war, and as a result of his extreme unbias the work became subject to controversy for many years. Studying history through his lens of objectivism, Taylor’s theory is that Hitler’s design wasn’t one of world domination; rather his methods, especially his foreign policies, didn’t differ from his predecessors. However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.” (p.20-21) As a result of the war, Russia was severely weakened, which greatly upset the balance of power in Europe. Taylor claims that, “What gave France independence as a ... ... middle of paper ... ... him to conciliate.” (pg. 216) Finally, Taylor explains, after Britain’s failure to help reach an agreement, the aggression dragged both France and Britain into war with Germany. Taylor’s perspective on the origins of the Second World War, although controversial, is not one so easily dismissed. Taylor’s approach is one of, “innocent until proven guilty,” which allowed him to distribute accountability to both the Allied and Axis powers. Taylor carefully constructs a historical chain of cause and effect through his unbiased evaluation. The First World War left a structurally sound Germany bent on restoring its independence, and a weakened balance of power in Europe. These facts, along with a morally revolting yet rational leader, faced only with a strict policy of appeasement combined to form the perfect storm, one that would ravage the world in the Second World War.
Millman, Richard. British Foreign Policy and the Coming of the Franco-Prussian War. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965.
So when asking the question what the causes of World War One are its important to remember that the rivalries between European states were intensified by the imperialism of the 19th century. Which lead to tension which became fear of invasion that in turn resulted in an intricate system of alliances “ensured what might have been an isolated crisis in the Balkans became a general war”. Whilst the effects of imperialism may not be the single cause of the war, it was undoubtedly a contributing
The origins of World War One The Fritz Fisher thesis Fritz Fisher focuses on the Kaiser, Gottlieb von Jagow, Bethmann Hollweg and Helmut von Moltke. These four were the German leading figures at that time; Fischer is convinced that these people were responsible for the outbreak of World War One. Fischer’s three main claims were: 1. Germany was prepared to launch the First World War in order to become a great power. 2. Germany encouraged Austria-Hungary to start a war with Serbia, and continued to do so, even when it seemed clear that such a war could not be localized.
The invasion of Poland by Germany in September 1939 is regarded as the trigger that unleashed the Second World War. After an analysis and study of the causes of the conflict, from my point of view I consider that the depiction of hostilities that would trigger this great war were developed long before and were only a matter of time before this war began. I consider it this way, because Germany as the defeated nation of the World War I, in which the victorious nations, imposed conditions within which Germany ceded part of its territory and its colonies, reduce its army and pay annual compensation to the victorious nations.
The mistakes made from World War I were well-defined in the Treaty of Versailles when this “peace pact” required Germany to pay billions in war reparations that ultimately drove Germany into economic shambles, creating the perfect conditions for Hitler to rise and take over with his totalitarian regime. The treaty of Versailles reduced the Germany army to 100,000 men and allotted Saarland, an industrial region of Germany rich in coal and iron, to France. The treaty left Germany handicapped not only physically, but also emotionally after World War I. Furthermore, the T...
Balkan nationalism was a major factor in the outbreak of the WWI .It is one of the long-term causes which caused European powers to declare war to each other. Even if the war between Austria and Serbia was expected to be a short one it culminated into a worldwide conflict that lasted four years. The idea of Pan-Slavism was the result of Serbian’s nationalism and Serbia refused to be oppressed by Austria-Hungary. Serbs demanded for rights of self-governance and unified state. However their neighbor Austria-Hungary wanted to become imperial power and she implied territorial expansion. Historians have different opinions about this subject and because of its complexity it is not possible to say that none of them is completely right. Balkan countries were a big threat for her foreign policy and this led to the culmination of their conflict and the outbreak of the war. Although nationalism is important in understanding the outbreak of WWI, there are many underlying causes that together culminated into a worldwide conflict. It is hard to reach the final answer on the question which relates to the extent of the importance of Balkan nationalism in the outbreak of the war because there are many different perspectives in understanding this question. For example Ruth Henig’s opinion is that Balkan nationalism was extremely important for the war and sees the guilt of Austria-Hungary for its outbreak. On the other hand John Leslie says that the responsible is Germany :“Austria-Hungary can be held responsible for planning a local Austro-Serb conflict, which was linked to its fears about Balkan nationalism, but Germany, which was not interested in this quarrel, quite deliberately used it as an opportunity to launch the European war which Austria-...
The thesis in the article ‘The origins of the World War’, by Sidney B. Fay, can clearly be stated as the explanation for World War I. Fay states that no one country is responsible for the creation of the war. Furthermore, he goes on to explain that each of the European country’s leaders did, or failed to do ‘certain’ things to provoke the other countries into a war. Fay states, “One must abandon the dictum of the Versailles Treaty that Germany and her allies were solely responsible. It was a dictum exacted by victors from vanquished, under the influence of the blindness, ignorance, hatred, and the propagandist misconceptions to which war had given rise.” (Fay, The Origins of the World War). His main arguments are his explanations of how each country was responsible for the creation of the war. His first explanation is that of how Serbia was partly responsible. Fay explains that Serbia knew that by not co-operating with the Austrian government over the implications of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand assassination they were indirectly preparing for a war they would fight but did not want. Fay says that Austria was more responsible for the war than any other power but not in military attack, but more in the form of self-defence. He makes it clear that Austria was justified in their battle and that they didn’t have to, “sit back and await the dismemberment at the hands of its neighbors.” (Fay, The origins of the World War). Fay believes that Berchtold wanted a local war with Serbia but knew and was content with the fact that the rest of Europe could very easily become involved with the war. Fay’s third country’s explanation was that of Germany. He believed that Germany did not want a war and tried to avert one completely. It is his belief that since Austria was Germany’s only dependable ally, they were dragged into the war. Furthermore, he explains that Germany’s geographical location, being in the middle of the conflict between France and Russia, they had little choice in the matter and had to defend their territory as well as Austria-Hungary’s. Fay’s fourth country and major power discussed, was Russia. He believed that Russia supported Serbia because of the frequent guidance and encouragement given at Belgrade, and if a war were to break out they would more than happy to fight along with the belief of France and Britain helping out. Furthermore, at the same ...
It was broadly considered that the Second World War began in 1939 because of Hitler’s plan for world domination; many historians validated this view at the time until A.J.P. Taylor published his book ‘Origins of the Second World War’ in 1961. A. J. P Taylor was the first historian to examine the war with a completely open mind, forcing people to view the origins not as a moral issue but as a political history. Taylor regards the start of the war as a blunder on both sides, stating that “Hitler had no clear-cut plan and instead was a supreme opportunist, taking advantages as they came.” From this Taylor suggests that neither Hitler nor any other Powers want this war. However, because his argument caused such a debate, it led other historians to criticise the methods Taylor used to establish his argument. Hugh Trevor-Roper says that “Mr Taylor hardly ever refers to Mein Kampf...” Mein Kampf is seen as an essential piece of writing when examining the origins of the war. Within Mein Kampf was not a detailed policy of what Hitler planned to do, but the “oracular pronouncement, pointing the way towards the harsh historical path that Germany must tread” argues Overy. Therefore, Taylor’s analysis was so controversial because it forced people to view the origins of the war in a totally new way, not looking at Hitler as a world dominating fascist like everyone thought, but as a normal statesman.
The Policy of Appeasement as the Most Important Reason for the Outbreak of the Second World War
In 1914, Europe was diving into two separate powers. One was Triple Entente composed of France, Russia and Britain. Other one was Triple Alliance, consists of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. (Pope 2) Each of the countries was connected with different treaties. The caused of European countries’ unstable political situation and threat of war was present. By arranging alliances with other governments, most countries found ways to protect themselves from assault. While Germany was becoming the center of the struggle, Europe made a spider web of tangled alliance that led most countries into two opposing powers. (Hamilton 16) In the late nineteenth century, the most surprising event in Europe was the birth of united state of Germany. Under the leadership of the Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, system of alliances was established to achieve peace in Europe. By 1890, Bismarck succeeded in having every major power into his alliance system...
This paper will explore the reasons behind Great Britain’s decision to turn against its ally France during the early years of World War II. More specifically, this paper will look deeper into why British Prime Minister Winston Churchill decided the best option for Great Britain, at the time, was to attack the French fleet located at Mers-el-Kébir on July 3, 1940. It will describe how Churchill’s decision to attack the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir was detrimental to prevent Germany from completely turning the tide of the war in its favor. The attack of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir was truly devastating to France; however, this attack gave Great Britain the leverage it needed to stand its ground and to keep fighting in the war. This paper argues that Churchill ordered the attack
The Treaty of Versailles, as the most substantial document in the twentieth century, was supposed to end future wars and to bring in new world order, as the treaty tried to change the unequal treatments regarding gender, class and race in the prewar period (p.66-67). However, it instead planted seeds for subsequent escalated conflicts and hostilities and kept the world enmeshed in the imperialism-centered system. Many reasons caused the ineffectiveness of the treaty. In The Treaty of Versailles: A Concise History, Michael Neiberg provides detailed narratives from the aspects of complex world of 1919, the players, their respective considerations and the political environment to account for the dysfunction of the treaty.
Examinations of Hitler's role in the formulation of Nazi foreign policy and his goals of that foreign policy leads to questions of the limits of his goal of Lebensraum. This introduces the debate between 'globalists' and 'continentalists'. Expanding on Trevor-Roper's emphasis on Hitler's goals of Lebensraum, historian Gunter Moltmann argued that Hitler's aims were not confined to Europe but at world domination. Andreas Hillgruber expands on this idea with his concept of a three-stage plan he calls the Stufenplan as the basis for Nazi foreign policy. This plan involved Germany gaining mastery over Europe, followed by the Middle East and British colonial territory, and later the USA and with that the entire world.
“Napoleon I had smashed through the German states with ease during the Napoleonic wars. Now a generation later, the roles would be reversed. Even though the war was a short duration, it dramatically changed European history.” The year of 1870 marked as the start of a war that changed the outlook of history as we know it today. This time period from 1870-1871 was known as the Franco-Prussian War, and there were many leading causes and events that took place for a bizarre and wild finish to what would be the beginning of an era for World War I.