Question: Discuss Hitler’s eventual gaining of Lebensraum. Was it mealy oppurtunistic or astutely planned?

The argument that Hitler’s objectives were to expand the Reich is one that cannot be argued against. In 1920 the German Workers’ Party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party ( or the Nazi party ). It also published its manifesto ; “We demand ....the revocation of peace treaties. We demand land and territory to feed our people and settle our surplus population.” Again 17 years in an address known as the ‘Hossbach memorandum’ Hitler stressed his goal that gains in land mass must be made. There can be no argument that Hitler and the Nazi’s were primarily seeking land. Hitler’s eventual gaining of land around Europe is a subject of ongoing debate. Did Hitler plan the expansion of the Reich or was this goal of his carried out by fortunate circumstances. It essential to concentrate on Hitler’s own words to gain insight into this question.

This essay will focus on two reputable historians who have strong arguments for and against the question at hand. A J P Taylor presents an argument that Hitler “ ..did not make plans- for world conquest or anything else. He assumed that others would provide opportunities and that he would seize them.” H. R. Trevor- Roper has put forth an aggressive critique on Taylor’s notable work ‘The Origins of the Second World War’ that supports the oppurtunistic argument. Trevor - Roper dismissing his view as poorly researched and prematurely dismissing evidence that sways against his view.

Although theses historians will be used to support the respective arguments personal research will make up the main structures, as there seems to be countless amounts of information that these historians have missed. The contemporary historic community seems fairly divided with a slight slant towards a more structuralist approach. In the later parts of the analyses the two fundamentals of the arguments will be presented with a personal conclusion drawn.

In 1920 the German Workers’ Party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party ( or the Nazi party ). It also published its manifesto. Policies two and three portray particular relevance to the topic at hand. “ We demand....the revocation of the peace treaties. We demand land and territory ( colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.”

Hitler and the Nazi’s always had the premise objectives to expand German territory by principally demolishing the rearmament restrictions. “ For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East and making food supplies secure , and also solving the problem of the Baltic states.” - May 1939, Adolf Hitler. For Germany to gain more land mass war was inevitable , preferably against the East. Of course the sixty year old debate still wages whether Hitlers goals were world domination or simply parts of europe he felt were rightfully his. Hitler was aware of the inevitable war and a series of foreign policy’s over six years began to lead and prepare Germany for war. The question arises and has been a subject of constant debate, whether these foreign policies where planned before hand or opportunistic? Two reputable historians have presented strong arguments for and against the statement. A J P Taylor presents an argument that Hitler “ did not make plans- for world conquest or anything else. He assumed that others would provide opportunities and that he would seize them.” - A J P Taylor ( The Origins of The Second World War ). A J P Taylor takes an extremely one sided view on Hitler and his foreign policies. H. R . Trevor- Roper is tipped to the other side of the spectrum , he puts forth an aggressive critique on Mr Taylor’s notable work dismissing his view as poorly researched and prematurely dismissing evidence that sways against his view. Mr Trevor- Roper presents an alternate argument to Mr Taylor that like Mr Taylor arises a strong argument. The contemporary historic community seems fairly divided with a slight slant towards a more structuralist approach. In the later parts of the analyses the two fundamentals of the arguments will be presented with a personal conclusion drawn.

In essence Mr Taylor has striped himself of all emotions towards the Germans , entering a plain of neutrality , where he feels by studying the raw documents and sources of the period he can best draw conclusions about the events that unfolded. It is in these documents and sources that his critics mostly draw fuel to attack his personal conclusions. Mr Taylor’s opportunist opinion arises from his assessment of Hitler as an individual. Hitler is presented by Mr Taylor as a man with objectives an a great deal of patience. A leader who took advantage of a situation , seeking neither war nor a unrightful territory. This is in essence the character that the opportunist argument believes Hitler to be. Mr Taylor is of firm opinion that Hitler was not about global domination ( and in some cases nor is the ‘programme’ line ) but wished the expansion or union of Smaller central European states such as Austria and Czechoslovakia. One of Mr Taylor’s strong factors in denouncing a blue print or ‘programme’ for German expansion, is a discussion between Hitler and his senior advisors and commanders in on the 5th of November 1937. The statements made by Hitler are known as the ‘ Hossbach memorandum ’ named after the man who wrote it. Taylor speculates that this is suppose to contain Hitler’s plan’s so hence the historical significance of the statements. On the 5th of November Hitler called a conference in the Chancellery. It is recorded that the participants were Neurath ( the minister of war) , Fritsch ( the foreign minister ) , Raeder ( commander in chief of the Army) and the commander in chief of both the air force and navy. Hitler began discussing the need for Lebensraum ( land or territory), particular area’s were not specified but he stressed that particular gains had to be made. Hitler released as already discussed that forced would have to be used to acquire such territory. The question remained how and when was this force going to be asserted? Hitler presented three different scenario’s. One ( 1943-1945 ), Hitler proclaimed that 1943 was a year for action. Two , Civil war in France had began “ the time for action against the Czechs had come.” - Hitler. Three, war between France and Italy occurred “ our objective must be to overthrow Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously” - Hitler. The General way in which point one was quoted adds to support the non-planned scenario of Foreign policy. Taylor states simplistically “ None of these ‘cases’ came true; clearly therefore they do not provide the blue print for German policy” - A J P Taylor ‘The Origins of the Second World War’ pg 169. This point is the greatest factor in the argument that Hitler never created a blue print nor did one exist. In interpreting Taylor’s argument the second factor that Taylor really pushed towards his readers was the Czechoslovakian crises’ significance in proving again that no plan existed but more importantly Hitler merely used situations to his advantage the spark if you will was always there. Czechoslovakia consisted of numerous ethic minorities above all Germans ( around three million). The German’s heard “...the call of nationalism” (- Taylor ‘ The Origins of the Second World War’pg190) and saw there united Germany growing powerful and united over there boarders. It seems within the historical community the general consensus that the German- Czech’s wished to join the German empire but also wished to stay in there homeland. Taylor believes strongly that Hitler didn’t create this movement it merely grew stronger as Germany grew stronger. Hitler introduced foreign policies that in essence supported the leaders of the German faction in Czechoslovakia. He appointed a chain of leadership , and that they should create demands that are undeliverable to the Czech government. This almost immediately sprang politicians around the world into a frenzy , scenario’s worked though , alliances re -evaluated. In the end of the twists and turns England and France tell Germany to demand more, which as Taylor describes it takes Hitler quite by surprise. Taylor uses the Czech situation to portray Hitler as a leader which merely curves situations to his advantage rather then creating them. Again , seemingly arguing the opportunist line. Mr Taylor portrays a Hitler throughout his works that attempts to avoid conflict , a clever man who turns a ‘constant’ until it meets his ideological objectives. Mr Taylor presents a very one-sided argument that although not in relevance to the question , an argument that seems to have embedded in it’s depth a humble sympathy for Hitler. Covering this sympathy is a line of argument that is very persuasive towards Hitler having no ‘blue print’ for global or European domination but more an intelligent man that grasped the opportunities presented to him.

The ‘programme’ or planned argument also presents a credited argument. Sifting through the people that support Hitler having a clear plan , the most notable and persuasive seems to be H. R. Trevor-Roper. His argument is logical yet simply. In times Mr Taylor seems to be confused himself when writing but Mr Trevor-Roper is most coherent. The ‘programme’ which Mr Trevor-Roper presents is one of “Eastern Colonisation, entailing a war against Russia.” Hitler’s aims were for Germany to be the superpower in Europe and if it was necessary have the ability to conquer the West as well. Hitler had to rebuild Germany to carry out these actions , both military and economy. Mr Trevor-Roper greatest criticism of Mr Taylor’s notable thesis is the way in which he dismisses ‘Mein Kampf.’ Mr Trevor-Roper in line with the planned argument believes “..those plans are mistakenly stated in Mein Kampf...” Mr Trevor-Roper strongly believes that Mein Kampf possessed plans that Hitler eventually attempted to carry out. Sir Robert Ensor another notable historian is also of the opinion the there was a plan embedded in Mein Kampf. The question arises is Mein Kampf simply an ideological book for Hitler or a ‘programme’ with sinister intentions? Mr Trevor-Roper is strongly of the opinion as many other historians are that Mein Kampf was a blue print for German expansion and many other Nazi policies. Mein Kampf is being used by Mr Trevor-Roper to support his planned argument as Hitler speculates on his intentions and goals, which in most cases were carried out. Therefore Mr Trevor- Roper claims , constituting a plan. Although , Mein Kampf in all trueness is translated differently by different people. It is essential to note that although Mr Trevor-Roper uses it to support his ‘programme’ argument this is merely based on his translation of Hitler’s writing's. As although he feels it constitutes a plan Mr Taylor dismisses it and people who feel this way by stating they have “..claimed to have discovered” a plan. Again , athough some historians inline with the opportunist argument dismiss it another group of historians in line with the ‘planned’ line of argument , preach it’s significance. Mein Kampf is all about personal interpretation and it is essential to realize this. The next point for the planned argument is that of Hitler’s various private speeches that in minute detail have been discussed already. Taylor used a portion of one of Hitler’s speeches to portray how some statements Hitler said did not come true ,so therefore how could there be a grand plan that was carried out. As with Mein Kampf Hitler’s various speeches are again about personal interpretation. The opportunists use the speeches to argue there line, but so does the planned line of argument thinkers. H. R. Trevor-Roper uses them as the knock out punch in his argument. On November 5th 1937 Hitler summoned his war leaders ( as already discussed in greater detail in the opportunist argument) to hear his ‘last will and testament’ if anything should happen to him. It was named the Hossbach Memorandum. Mr Trevor-Roper uses this speech as evidence for Hitler’s plans of expansion although Europe. Mr Trevor-Roper has great support in his view of the speech because like Mr Taylor seems to forget , the speech was used at Nuremberg “....as evidence of Hitler’s plans for gradual conquest of Europe.”( The Origins of The Second World War - H.R. Trevor-Roper.) Hitler proclaimed the aim of Germany was for Lebensraum . “German politics” he said , “Must reckon with two hateful enemy’s , England and France, to whom a strong German colossus in the centre of Europe would be intolerable.” “ The German question can only be solved by way of force and this is never without risk.” Hitler than described a conquest in terms of Austria and Czechoslovakia “...the annexation of the two states to Germany, military and politically.” Though Mr Trevor-Roper dwells on this issue minutely , the significance is quite clear. Hitler seemed to have a plan or clear agenda which was cloaked to a certain point in this speech but when studying the war itself it becomes quite clear. Hitler clearly didn’t constitute lebensraum as Czechoslovakia and Austria but mere ‘stepping stones’ for greater conquest.

The way in which Hitler described the many of the outcomes of the war in this speech is very soppurtive to the ‘programme’ argument. The way in which Hitler acknowledges possible English and French evolvement and the eventual way in which he captures Czechoslovakia and Austria suggests that he had a plan all along. The plan may have been in light of his speeches and eventualities to devour the two nations and use them as stepping stones to Europe. This seems quite logical although Mr Taylor interprets Hitler’s opinion towards the roles of the countries to be ‘ satellites.’ Again two views are portrayed and based on personal opinion. Mr Trevor-Roper’s analyses of the speech seems to be very supportive of Hitler having a clear ‘programme’ with foreign policies.

The next example to support the planned argument , is crisis that lead to the outbreak of World War Two. By this time both Austria and Czechoslovakia had been conquered both militarily and politically. There was no other option for further land gains than subsequently through Poland. The oppurtunistic argument falls limp here , because there were no opportunities presented to Hitler. How (as Mr Taylor would put it) could Hitler turn a situation like this to his advantage when there was no situation to turn? Hitler has no choice but to plan , deviously, his foreign policies so that he can invade Poland. And of course he makes a pact with Russia that he feels will keep him safe form English- French involvement. Hitler as Mr Trevor-Roper believes had no choice but to plan for the invasion of Poland as he could not take advantage of a helpful situation like in Czechoslovakia. This point is further supported by Hitler stating “ there will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland....It must not come down to a simultaneous showdown with the West.” This point clearly highlights the already obvious that planning is taking place and will take place on domestic and foreign policies to ensure that Germany does not end up having to battle the West to achieve it’s outcomes.

Both Mr Taylor and Mr Trevor-Roper produce strong arguments for and against Hitler’s foreign policies being planned or not. In light of the arguments I am taking a slanted view towards the plan argument although acknowledging that many of Hitler’s foreign policies were oppurtunistic. Before delving into the ‘programme’ in which I feel Hitler clearly had , I will present a few policies in which Hitler clearly did not plan for but merely took advantage of a favourable situation. The foreign policies introduced to support the rising German faction in Czechoslovakia is an example of Hitler as Mr Taylor believes taking advantage of a situation. As previously described in the oppurtunistic argument , Hitler supported a Growing German Nationalistic takeover in Czechoslovakia. This situation paved the way for the eventual takeover by Germany. Hitler merely acted on a situation that already existed and twisted it to suit his grander plan. Nether less, the policy of supporting the German faction was a policy that Hitler created on the basis of the grower support in Czechoslovakia for it’s re-unification with Germany. This is a clear example of an oppurtunistic situation. Hitler in many other examples takes advantage of situation’s that he has not created. It is possible i feel to prove that Hitler had a plan to achieve his objectives but in many situations such as this an opportunity presented itself and he took it with open hands. So although most foreign policy's were planned some policy’s were introduced to merely act on favourable situation. It seems to me regardless of Mr Taylor dismissing most of Hitler’s speeches as him merely “..talking for effect.” Some speeches , in my opinion, clearly portray Hitler conveying his plans for Germany. Which in turn would support the argument that numerous foreign policy’s were planned because Hitler as portrayed in his speeches has an overall plan. The notorious November 5th Speech which has already been discussed ,is written off by Mr Taylor as a point for the ‘programme’ argument as he feels Hitler “..is talking for effect.” I think the greatest strength of the ‘planned ‘ argument is Hitler’s speeches in particular this one. When reading the transcript of the speech it is clear that Hitler is directing German forces in the event of his death. The way in which he highlights his enemy’s and subsequently plots the path for lebensraum to be taken , clearly suggests to me that there was a plan all along in foreign polices that attempted to push Nazi objectives. Hitler in this speech practically draws the plan for German land gains . Reading the transcript of this and other Hitler speeches I ‘ve drawn the conclusion through Hitler’s constant talk of how the war will be fought and how German land gains will be made that Hitler had a ’programme’ to carry out his objectives. Of course you could argue that Hitler merely discussed his aims which doesn’t constitute a plan, but again on personal opinion it seems clear to me that Hitler had a plan. The surplus arms build up that began to exponentially occur when Hitler came to power supports the argument for planned policies in the objective of land gains. The fact that Germany was building up arms supplies so substantially clearly portrays that Hitler was planning for something which would require great force. This is how i feel rearmament fits into the puzzle of foreign politicises. Hitler would not have rearmed so strongly unless he had a plan for the years of 1933-1939 that required such arms. It seems logical that Hitler had objectives to carry out , for which he planned specific foreign policies for , the rearmament was essential to complement these policies. How could Germany gain land without a substantial Armed Service? To conclude , Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s began rearmament to complement a series of Foreign policies that when the timing was right would implement. Although in my opinion there was a plan that aimed to carry out Nazi objectives through a series of planned foreign policies, some situations arose in which Hitler saw the opportunity to catalyse or mend a situation to his advantage.

Bibliography: