Hitler's Foreign Policy in the years 1933-39

1097 Words5 Pages
Hitler's Foreign Policy in the years 1933-39 When looking at Hitler's foreign policy it is difficult to pin point one particular year as a turning point through which Hitler's actions change from cautious to aggressive. When looking at this statement it is therefore assuming to describe the years leading up to 1937 as a period of pure restraint and caution as the Hitler's actions before 37' suggest he employed tactics that were both restrained and provocative. It is far easier to speculate a mix of aggression and caution in Hitler's actions both before and after 1937. In order to agree or disagree with this statement as a summary of Hitler's foreign policy in the years 1933 to 1939 we must compare his cautious actions before 1937 and his aggressive actions after 1937 with his aggressive actions before 37' and his actions of restraint after 37'. In agreement with this statement there are various examples of Hitler's caution in foreign policy before 1937. From early 1933 one of Hitler's main objectives was to rearm, an action that would not only violate the treaty of Versailles but depict him publicly as an aggressive nationalist. This is where we see the first signs of caution in foreign policy not necessarily in Hitler's actions, as he did not hesitate to rearm once in power, but in his desire to camouflage this militaristic move from the general public. Throughout 1933 he exclaimed in various public interviews and speeches that 'nobody wishes for peace more than I' yet in secret by February 1933 he had already told the generals and the cabinet that rearmament was Germany's main priority. I think that Hitler's desire to keep rea... ... middle of paper ... ...n 1937? Perhaps this is evidence in itself. After viewing all the evidence it would be wrong to wholly agree with this statement, as there is too much evidence to suggest that Hitler was progressively aggressive and not just after 1937. I think it is also relevant to conclude that with every aggressive move he made he couples with an action of peace and caution. While he gets progressively aggressive he manages to mask it with various public actions of caution. I think it is this bond between his cautious action and aggressive actions that enables him to get away with so much by 1939. I do not completely agree with this statement however I can understand that the aggression is more concentrated and more substantial (with Anschluss, and the invasions of the Sudentanland, Czechoslovakia and then Poland) after 1937.
Open Document