On June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany launched the invasion of the Soviet Union, codename Operation Barbarossa, an attack that would lead to the deaths of tens of millions. Adolf Hitler sent a letter to his ally Benito Mussolini, detailing the reasoning behind his betrayal of Joseph Stalin, and cementing the Nazi state’s ideological commitment to the destruction of the Bolshevik creed. In this essay I intend to analyse the letter and interpret Adolf Hitler’s motivations in sending it, and indeed understand the wider motivations behind such a gamble as to take on the Soviet juggernaut.
Hitler’s intention for this letter was to explain to Mussolini the reason for the attack; the question must be asked however, why did he send it the night before? One could assume that as both Germany and Italy established themselves as the ‘axis’ powers during the signing of the tripartite pact in 1940, Hitler felt morally obliged to inform Mussolini. As they both shared the common enemy it could be interpreted that he used this letter to give reason for his actions. It has been accounted by Leach that Hitler had written letters to all axis powers. The personalized form of this letter suggests he may have altered the information in each letter, or out of respect for each axis he wrote to them personally. What is evident from this letter though, is that Mussolini had no idea about Germany’s plans for the Soviet Union, and was not consulted in the preparation. It can be evaluated that “Hitler still looked to the Axis alliance to cover his rear by threatening the British in the Mediterranean and Far East and by discouraging the United States” but he had no provision “made in German planning for the active participation of either Italy or Japan in the war a...
... middle of paper ...
... Available at : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xgkzMdZD3iQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summar y_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Accessed on: 08/12/13
• Leach. (1973) German Strategy Against Russia 1939-1941, Oxford, Oxford University Press
• Noakes, J and Pridham, G. (2001)Nazism, 1919-1945. Vol.3. Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination. A document Reader, Exeter, University of Exeter Press.
• Presseisen, E. (1960) Prelude to “Barbarossa”: Germany and the Balkans, 1940-1941, The Journal of Modern History, 32(4):
• Wegner. (1997) From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia and the World 1939-1941, Oxford, Berghahn Books, pp.
• Weinberg, G. (1989) The Nazi soviet Pact: A Half- Century Later, Foreign Affairs, 68(4): pp. 175
• Wegner. (1997) From Peace to War: Germany, Soviet Russia and the World 1939-1941, Oxford, Berghahn Books, pp. 27
Crockatt, Richard. The fifty years war : the United States and the Soviet Union in world politics, 1941-1991. London; New York; Routledge, 1995.
Dawidowicz, Lucy S.. The war against the Jews, 1933-1945. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975.
Douglas R (2013). ‘Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War’. Published by Yale University Press (3 Sep 2013)
Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War: Dividing the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997. Publishing.
Bard, Mitchell G. The Complete Idiot's Guide to world War II, Macmillan Publishing, New York, New York, 1999
O'Neill, William L. World War II: A Student Companion. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.
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.”
Zink, Harold. (1957) The United States in Germany, 1944-1955 [online]. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand [cited 12th September 2011]. Available from:
Stroebel, Jeffrey T. World War II. Part I: Between the Wars. The Sycamore School, 1995. Revised 1998.
MODERN HISTORY – RESEARCH ESSAY “To what extent was Nazi Germany a Totalitarian state in the period from 1934 to 1939?” The extent to which Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state can be classed as a substantial amount. With Hitler as Fuhrer and his ministers in control of most aspects of German social, political, legal, economical, and cultural life during the years 1934 to 1939, they mastered complete control and dictation upon Germany. In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is run by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support.
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 Germany after World War I influencing Nazi foreign policy, the general goals this foreign policy prescribed to included revision of Versailles, the attainment of Lebensraum, or 'living space', and German racial domination. These foreign policy goals are seen through an examination of the actions the Nazi government took in response to events as they happened while in power, and also through Hitler's own ideology expressed in his writings such as Mein Kempf. This synthesis of ideology and social structure in Germany as the determinants of foreign policy therefore can be most appropriately approached by attributing Nazi foreign policy to a combination as both 'intentionalist' and 'structuralist' aims. Nazi foreign policy radicalized with their successes and was affected by Hitler pragmatically seizing opportunities to increase Nazi power, but also was based on early a consistent ideological programme espoused by Hitler from early on.
Manson, K J. Second Edition, Republic to Reich: A History of Germany 1918-1945, McGraw Hill 2003
According to the lecture, Hitler’s plans were to make it known the Germans were the superior race, Jews and Gypsies were subhuman, Hitler promised to take back the land taken from the after the war, and Lebensraum. Both men had their countries become a part of the Axis powers, and along with Japan became Fascist nations. Mussolini’s rise to power came through his influence on the fascist people. According to the lecture it was fascists that marched to Rome in October 1922, and the people demanded that the king put Mussolini in charge of the government. It was through fear that Mussolini gained his power.
Shmoop Editorial Team.” Adolf Hitler in World War 2.” Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 26 Feb. 2014
Taubman, William. Stalin's American Policy: From Entente to Detente to Cold War. New York: Norton, 1982. Print.