Appeasement

Read Article on 'Lines of Least Resistance.' The article gives important information about Winston Churchill and how appeasement was not an unusual occurance and Europe displayed a history of pacifism.

Some good points that were mentioned in the dicussion were...

• Europe was tired of war and were destined to potentially be the first pacifist continent. This history of peacemaking is shown by events such as The Hague Convention 1899 (this forbade the use of torture and abuse of human rights) and The Kellogg-Briand Pact 1929.
• The whole concept of the League Of Nations, and still shown today in the form of the United Nations. It presented the idea that peace can be collectively kept, and how the west's policy of appeasement towards Hitler can be included in this bracket.
• Appeasement needed to be considered in it's wider context, and the best reasons for it's use was mainly to avoid war.
• However, trying to impose pacifism, especially to such a determined nation such as Germany seemed irrational in such situations, and how humanity isn't wired to have that quality of all wanting peace.

Read article 11.12 on given set of documents in stapled set...

It mentions how Anchluss had just ocurred, and a fear of a German merge with Czechoslovakia was present, but the article still backs the appeasement used by Chamberlain. This however can be seen as absurd, as England could accept peace more easily, as it was a nation of isolation in effect, separated from Europe by the seas, while contiental countries are surrounded by eachother, proving it harder to keep the peace between them and reduce friction.

It was argued England should have took preventative measures at this time, such as ally themsleves with France who were allied with Czechoslovakia(Little Entente) England however could not physically help the Czecks as they are far apart.

Chamberlain sees appeasement as the only way forward, as he cannot guarantee Czech safety. The 'tipping-point' was the Czech-Britain crisis of 1938, when Chamberlain faced this dilemma of what action to take about German potential aggression towards Czechoslovakia.

However, Chamberlain saw the Sudetenland crisis as an opportunit to show Hitler the possiblitly of negotiation without violence. However, this seemed foolish just to hand over the Sudetenland to Hitler, as it was never actually part of Germany, and was a physical barrier between them and the Czecks. Germany with possession of this mountaneous land could hold a strong defensive and attacking point towards Czechoslovakia. This countered the policy of appeasement, as it gave Germany the advantage of the Czech's by having the Sudetenland.

A. Brown

Test

Lesson Monday 3rd December

Spent 40 mins revising before receving the following question for the hours test:

Test on Diplomatic Situation 1935-37:

"In 1934 Mussolini had threatened to confront Hitler over Nazi interference in Austria. By 1937 the dictators had aligned themselves firmly alongside eachother"

How far did ideological factors play a part in the change of this attitude?

Those away on Oxbridge interviews are to complete the essay at home ready for next Mondays lesson.

The Holocaust and the German People

The lesson began with the reading of a passage about the ongoings of an extermination camp. The article showed some key points, to how the destination of these camps were 'most secret' as the destination was unknown. The article included the method of transportation of people. For example, Belzec, the road/railway line that could carry 15,000 people a day. It shows the efficient transport of the jews to these camps. The goal of making the process quicker and efficient is mentioned also.
The article describes how many victims were dead upon arrival due to the harsh conditions of the journey, and all thier valuables and possessions were taken from them, along with the collection of their hair and clothes, which were all taken back to Germany. The efficient use of space is shown, as the article mentions how about 700-800 people were fit in an area of 25 square metres, only taking 32 minutes of gas to kill them all.

We then watched a video on the holocaust, that showed the effects of a German propeganda film released at the time that promoted family while many Germans were unaware of the operations of the extermination camps.
The video showed how the Germans had achived successful experiments with gas and it was distributed to camps all located around Poland initially. There were no extermination camps located in Germany. It could be argued that the onset of WW2 allowed the holocaust, as camps would not have been able to be set up in Germany, as seemed to be too horrific for many people. The video mentions how it was not only jews taken to these camps, but also other groups that the Nazi's considered a threat, such as gypsies. The example of Trablinka Station is used, as it was made to look as normal as possible to avoid suspicion, and passengers/victims were told it was a hygiene stop.
In 1943, all the camps were destroyed, to remove any trace of the Holocaust operation, not because of shame, but as Germany were losing the war at current, to the enemy they most feared - Russia.

This raises the question of How far were the German people responsible for the Holocaust?

Historian, Goldenhagen argues how the German people were to blame, as 100,000 German people were involved of the operations of the Holocaust. (This however showes to be relatively few compared to the overall population of Germany)
Other historians argue how the whole operation was kept secret. The ones involved were made to believe they were ridding Germany of a scruge, helping future Generations. This was important, as the killing of these victims were physcologically affecting the executioners, even Himmler himself could not view the mass murder for too long. A passion was needed to believe that the victims were truly in need of extermination. They were also perhaps influenced by the grip of terror by their leaders, to make them think that what they were doing was good. The victims were made to be dehumanised, as they were put in trams, in rage and bad hygiene conditions. They were treated as a plague, which was projected via. propeganda in Germany. Many of the German people were argued to know about the ongoings in the east of the mass murder, but knowing and complying are 2 different things.

(Page 351 in H&H offers reasons for why the German people didn't know, and did not object.)
One important point to make about the people invloved in the Holocaust, was that the victims aswell as the perpetraitors were multinational. This gives an insight into human nature, not just the nature of the German people.
It shows appropiate to subtract Germany from the question, and aruge to why did people let it happen? - Many willing executioners were influenced by anti-semitism.
(Sources on page 352 provides views upon the relationship between the treatment of the jews and the German people)

Another question is also posed here...
How did the war contribute to the Holocaust?

Read page 353 of H&H, which provides an overview on how the war did affect the operations of the Holocaust. These include...

• The war disrupted the Nazi government plans for mas jewish emigration.
• It meant Germany gained control of millions more Jews at a time, when Germany was trying to remove them from their own territory.
• It brutalised people, accustoming them to killing
• Since Germans were dying in the war, many felt killing their enemies was justified.
• Intensified paranoia about enemy within - encourage extremism.
• Removed any concern about international opinion.

This shows how the war produced opportunities for the Germans to carry out their plans of mass extermination, otherwise the jews wouldn't have been emigrated, so it is a important factor in the cause of the Holocaust. However, it could be argued that the breakout of war was inevitable, as it was planned by Hitler.

A.Brown

Anschluss

Discussed the answers to questions 6 and 7

Talked about the Appointment of Seyss-Inquart as the Austrian Minister of the Interior and Schuschnigg's referendum.

Watched the Third Reich in Colour DVD to give a background to the foreign affairs of Germany.

Work for next time:

Finish the questions on Anschluss 8-12
Read Chapter 3 of Darby
Expect an open-book essay test on the "Diplomatic Revolution" next time.

Nazi Political System

Monday 19th November

First of all apologies for the delay in updating the blog for Monday 19th November. (I don't have a valid reason apart from bad time management - sorry)

We began the lesson with a brief disscusion about a topic that we will discuss (well have already discussed due to this being a week late but oh well), namely the holocaust. The main point we discussed was that of Holocaust Denial and an example was given of a infamous historian, who was jailed in Austria for publishing a book in which he explored the arguements put forward by holocaust deniers.

After touching on this topic only briefly, we moved onto the activity on page 207 of H&H. We then discussed the debate below:

Was Nazi foreign policy intentionalist or structuralist?

Definitions:

• Intentionalist - This is the theory that individuals greatly affect the course of history, such as Stalin, Hitler or Napoleon.
• Structuralist - This is the theory that stresses major factors, such as political or economical, dictate the course of history and that individuals do have an influence, but that they are limited to the factors which affect their era.

Although it is difficult to choose between the two, we came to the conclusion that Hitler's foreign policy was more likely to have been intentionalist than structuralist, but that this definition didn't fit exactly and there was an element of structuralism as well.

The next question that was dealt with was on the topic of the Nazi political system:

How was such an allegedly chaotic sytem so successful?

In answer to this question it was concluded that this system survived for 12 years because the inefficiences were not apparent and in fact in most cases aided in the survival of the system.

• The internal rivalries generated a degree of effectiveness.
• Initially, Germany's rivals were weak - France, Poland and the USSR.
• The USA did not enter the was to begin with.
• Popularity of Hitler's policies made opposition difficult.

Finally, to end the lesson we watched a video entitled:

"Chaos and Consent - The Nazi Rule of Germany"

And we were left with the question:

How appropriate do you consider this title?

The relationship between the German People and the State- Friday 23rd November

The key issue in todays lesson was to look at the relationship between German people and the state. It is hard for us to measure or find evidence on how much oppositon there was to the Nazi regime but some (dry) jokes can be found on H&H page 330. Collaboration with the Nazis is easier to see and the reason for collaborating are as follows:

Hitler was popular; he undertook several difficult decisions to put Germany back on track
Nazis held the 'cloak of legality'
Loyalty could lead to advancement within the regime
Rebels were repressed and many feared backlash from authorities including the Gestapo force

The drawback of when a man rules through vision rather than detailed policy was illustrated on a video we saw. The example was of the T4 programme which was enforced euthanasia. Hitler received thousands of mail letters asking for help or suggesting ideas. One such letter was that of a father wanting his disabled son to be killed. An ambitious Nazi got hold of this letter and eventually this policy was implemented. This is an example of pressure from below, with Nazi-based ideas coming from non-Nazis. However eventually it was public discontent which lead to the programme becoming dropped.

Page 340 H&H- November 1938 was a radicalising turning point in anti-semitic policy. Until 1939 emigration was favoured but the outbreak of war made it harder to transport so many Jews, which is why the war had a crucial effect in the brutalisation of handling Jews.

'Descent into Hell' is a chronology of anti-semtic policies on pages 343 and 343 H&H. The mentioning of many decrees and legislation shows a very centralised approach, taking us straight to Hitler. However it wasnt only Hitler involved. Officials and policemen unofficially encouraged the Kristallnacht and public opposition of anti-semitic policy did not arrive as it did for the T4 programme. Therefore we have to aim to fathom how much involvement was plaed solely by Hitler in the Holocaust, a question posed on page 347 H&H.

The sources show clear racism from Hitler in his speeches, yet no document has ever been found with an order to kill Jews with Hitlers signature. This can be partly explained by the fact that Hitler wasnt really a bureacrat and mostly gave oral instructions. However another discussion point was the translation of words from German to English, sometimes translation is sketchy. E.g. Entfernung.

The lesson ended with us continuing to watch the video. The main topic was German advances into Eastern Europe, into Baltic Soviet states including Ukraine, Latvia and Lithuania. On arrival German soldiers were told to allow locals to particpate in purges against Jews, even encourage them. When Nazis entered these countries they were seen as liberators against the Communists and they would organise for local young men to gather and publicly beat and kill so called communist jew agents. But it must be pointed out that the Nazis didnt take full advantage of the Eastern Europeans. Assuming the people were racially inferior, the Nazis didnt bother using their hatred of communist Russia to their own advantage.

The Hossbach Memorandum and Anschluss

Hossbach Memorandum

5th November 1937

Minutes of a meeting with Hitler, von Blomberg (War Minister), Fritsch (Army), Raeder (Navy), Goring (Luftwaffe) and Neurath (Foreign Minister) taken by Hitler's adjutant, Colonel Hossbach.

Can be found at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/hossbach.htm

This is a statement of Hitler's foreign policy intent.

3 questions from the previous week:

Why is it controversial?

It was used at the Nuremburg trials after the war as evidence to incriminate those present. The way prosecutors manipulated the evidence has been seen to take away from its usefulness.

The Memorandum written up from notes i.e. it was not a verbatim account of what went on in that meeting. The time lag has led some historians to discredit its reliability.

What is notably omitted and why?

There is no mention of Lebensraum and no explicit reference to conflict with the USSR. This was firstly because Hitler was only describing "stage 2" as it were, of his plan, and secondly because he didn't want to alarm his chiefs of staff with the prospect of war with the USSR so soon.

How is it significant?

It is only two years before war broke out and provided a guide to Hitler's foreign policy aims which had been tempered since Mein Kampf by the responsiblity of being in government. Hitler here provides pragmatic policies to implement his ideological aims and it appears to be a reliable account of his true thinking because the notes were taken in a private meeting with his chiefs of staff as opposed to in the Reichstag or elsewhere.

Anschluss

(Kershaw II pp. 65-80)

Anschluss was discussed and questions 1-5 from a handwritten sheet were set in class with 6 and 7 to finish for prep.

Consider from a German and Austrian point of view:

• Economic arguments for/against Anschluss (autarky?)
• Emotions for/against Anschluss
• The Treaty of Versailles
• Self-determination (hypocrisy in T of V)
• Hitler's ideological goals
• The reactions of foreign powers (Italy, Britain and France)

Thank you for flying KES Airways. We hope to see you again soon. Please have your passports ready for inspection on arrival.