Taking Sides: Was WWII Solely Hitler's Fault?

Ian Kershaw is correct when he argues that while Hitler was responsible for the execution of the German foreign policy that inevitably led to World War II, Hitler was not free from the influence of outside forces. Kershaw, a professor of history at the University of Sheffield, is a structuralist. Structuralists generally believe Hitler cannot be held solely responsible for World War II and that he was “was a product of the environment he helped to create”. When it comes down to specifics, the structuralists tend to emphasize different aspects; for example, one may focus on the effects of socioeconomic pressure while another may focus on the lack of a coherent plan (343). Kershaw’s article draws from many aspects of structuralism and delivers a sufficient comprehensive argument in his excerpt.
German foreign policy during the Third Reich is a great source of great debate. Many historians agree that Hitler did make the big decisions of foreign policy after 1933. However, the disagreement occurs when discussing the extent which the foreign policy was derived from Hitler’s own “ideological pre-possessions and programme” (356). According to the structuralists, the foreign policy emphasized expansion and contained unclear and unspecific aims. This was due to the “uncontrollable dynamism and radicalizing momentum of the Nazi movement and governmental system” (353). Hitler’s foreign policy stressed his image and ideological fixations, not his direct intervention and initiative. Hitler is seen as an opportunist who makes spur-of-the-moment decisions, rather than a man with a concrete plan (354).
Kershaw provides support for his argument by including the views of other structuralists, such as Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, and ...

... middle of paper ...

...ons imposed their own restrictions on Hitler’s maneuverability”. Therefore, Hitler made those decisions based not only on his own beliefs, but also in accordance to the beliefs of his followers and fellow leaders. Many of the developments that happened under Hitler’s reign would likely have still happened had Hitler not been elected, because they “were in certain respects likely if not inevitable as the unfinished business of the First World War and the post-war settlement”. There are few discontinuities in German foreign policy after 1933, giving reason to believe this theory. His choices were based on the traditions of German policy and were aimed at reaching domination in central Europe, which leads to the conclusion that World War II was not the result of Hitler’s master plan, because it may have been the result no matter who was in charge at the time (360).