How much did Hitler’s foreign policy owe to his predecessors? Essay

Hitler claimed that his outside form _or_ system of government was original almost of it having been written eat up in the also original Mein Kampf, which included a huge salmagundi of ideological hatred, that had mainly been written before in approximately contour during the previous 50 years. So it was with impertinent policy. Although some elements were new, they were mostly because Hitlers predecessors had not had a chance to deal with them they were results of the outcome of the First existence War. These included lebensraum and pan Germanism, along with the desire to smash fabianism and the idea of a racial war, including the destruction of the Jewish race worldwide. However, the most important idea was to crush the treaty of Versailles, something which Bismarck could not read envisaged, as he was dead before the war heretofore started.However, Stresemann was kindle in totally revising Versailles, although not going so cold as ripping it up. There are also severa l obscure points, which featured before in German policy, alone to which Hitler added a teeny of his own personalized flavour. For example, the desire to expand into Russia was clear before rase the war, and designaten with the humiliating treaty of Brest-Litovsk, however no-one envisaged that Hitler would because try to use the Russians later on annexing them as a slave labour force. Hitler perhaps owes a debt to the Kaiser, for they dual-lane m whatever of the homogeneous qualities. It has been mused that Hitler was the natural successor to the Kaiser, and this is certainly true when it comes to the celestial sphere of Foreign policy.The Kaiser and Bismarck operated a right wing government from the invention of a united Germany in 1871, and in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. Bismarck, however, was more cautious than the war-mongering Kaiser, and his personal ideas are perhaps more equal to Hitler before 1938, whilst the Kaisers mirror the second period, from 1938 to 19 41 and the invasion of the Soviet Union. This was because Bismarck was always worried active Germanys dangerous geopolitical position sandwiched between several opposite great powers of the continent. He also had to be wary of the results of 1870, because French disgust to the Germans from then onwards became a constant element of European alien policy and diplomacy. Thus, to offset this disadvantage, he concluded the Dual alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879, which Italy joined in 1882. He also signed a vindicatory treaty with Russia and Austria.This policy was pursued by Hitler with similar effect, as he pushed for several alliances that did not necessarily mean anything. These included the Rome-Berlin Axis, the Anti-Comintern Pact, and non-aggression pacts with Russia and Poland. However, although Germany wanted a place in the sun, Bismarck was happy to stay on the sidelines when it came to Africa and Asia, as colonies not only led to tensions among the nations, but most of the nations with any economic appeal had already been grabbed by the other imperialist powers. Hitler, however, subscribed to Weber, who in 1895 stated that the foundation of thee German imperium was not a terminal achievement, but that it was a step towards more glory and success. The Kaiser also overlap this feeling, initiating Weltpolitik, and Admiral Tirpitz decided to build a fleet to support this, similar to Hitler, who built up a huge army after the presentation of conscription in 1935.Under the Kaiser, politics were perceived by foreigners as inflammatory, swaggering, insensitive and overly aggressive. Like Hitler, the Kaiser confided preserving the status quo would lead to decline, and thus Germany had to expand, kind of eastwards, the policy of Mittleuropa. Possibly Hitler implemented a kind of Weltpolitik for the same reasons that the Kaiser did, which were very domestic. after the failure of the anti-socialist laws, the ruling elite wanted to reconcile the worki ng(a) class with the state, by means of integrative nationalism, passion for overseas expansion and fix for national prestige. Finally, the personality of the Kaiser was such that it can be compared to Hitler, for they both were nationalists, racists, ghost with expansion, industrialisation and creating a Germany super-state with a huge army at its head.On the other hand, one might at first state that Stresemann, a servant of Weimar, would present a total discontinuation of foreign policy, but his right wing roots means that he actually presented Hitler with some ideas, despite the position Hitler portrayed himself as totally anti-Weimer, and indeed was in so many ways. However, although Stresemann had some different policies, this was due to pressure, for he was a right wing fish in a socialist sea. disrespect his leanings, though, he was never concerned with racial ideology which so prompt Hitlers conduct. The only man around in the Weimar Republic who had the same leanings as Hitler, was Ludendorff, (who later joined the Nazis) who believed that establishing a mammoth German subject in the east at the expense of Russia would give Germany a large hegemonial position in Europe and beyond, from which position Germany would be able to contradict a war self-sufficiently, called autarky.However, Stresemann believed Germany had to remain a trading nation and decompose of the international economic system. After the defeat of 1918, he became more of a realist, with a sharp sense of what could be through with(p) within the region of practical politics. Although hating Versailles, he came to realise Germany could not destroy it by force, (Hitlers aim) but only by collaborating with the Western powers in gradually modifying it. He decided to play Germanys strongest card, her economic importance, should be played in cooperation with the international community, rather than in defiance of it, as some nationalists argued. After his period as chancellor, he re mained as foreign minister until his death, decision making to advance by finesse rather than by force. He did this through several deals and treaties, which reduced the damage Versailles did to Germany rather than removing it completely. This included Locarno, the Dawes Plan, and the admission of Germany into the fusion of Nations in 1926.Shortly before his death, he claimed that the three great tasks of his foreign policy of finesse were as follows a solution of the reparations question, protection for the 10 or so million Germans living outside the new German border, and a revision of the German border with Poland. He did not believe Anschluss would be beneficial, as it would raise religious questions. Also, what was more important, and a great parallel with Hitler than with most of his other policies, was to ensure that Germany advanced through any means, namely through deals, including with the Russians. The treaty of Berlin greatly helped both outcasts, and was a function to some of Hitlers policies, for it enabled secret training of troops and testing of weapons and so forth As Stresemann had dismantled much of the system, this gave Hitler the chance to claim that originally his foreign policy would merely be the continuation of previous German governments.So, were Hitlers policies a continuation of others, or were they radically different? Although this subject has been crossed, the best(p) way of seeing whether this is true is to look at individual pieces of policy implemented by Hitler during the period 1933 to 1941. However, there are, as previously explained, twain distinct periods, one of which Hitler appeared to be on a sort of figurative leash.Hitler proposed a very radical plan, more than anything that the studyity of the German people, even the conservative elite would chip in proposed. He hoped tom win Britain as an ally, due to their concern over the growing power of the Japanese empire and the United States. He projected his crude Darwinism, but the British were never going to give Hitler a blank cheque for Eastern expansion. However, he implemented it with caution, like his predecessors, until 1938. This could be shown with the peaceable non-aggression pact with Poland, the return of the Saar, the Anglo-German marine agreement, the remilitarisation of the Rhineland (he was ready to retreat at any time), and cautiously gnarly himself in Abyssinia, and the Spanish civil war. He did this to help get Mussolini on side, without totally alienating France or Germany. Involvement in Spain also helped show his anti-communist policy, without seeming overly aggressive.This helped Hitler greatly, as these events led to the signing of the Rome-Berlin axis and the anti-Comintern pact. He also introduced the four-year plan, which was actually about re-armament, but Hitler portrayed the plan as mainly economic to the outside world. Hitler was also helped by the fact that the British government then decided to adopt the co ntroversial policy of appeasement, which meant that for deuce years, Hitler could effectively gather territory peaceable, without fear of foreign intervention. However, after Anschluss, Hitler then sacked Neurath and promoted Ribbentrop, which resulted in the turn in policy, which became more aggressive, in the carriage of the Kaiser.This aroused concern with many of the generals, who tried to warn the British government, but they would not listen. This new aggression was shown by the fact that Hitler was in fact very angry after the Munich conference, for he would have to control himself pretty until he had chance to strike. He also felt things were rising to a head where a large war would start, and in reality, he would have preferred a little war. The fact that he was willing to shake deals with anyone also helped his cause, for the signing of the Nazi-soviet pact was of vital importance. Hitler had been helped by the fact that Chamberlain had done everything possible to keep Stalin away from the negotiating table, for he wanted Britain to be the major mediator in European affairs.Therefore, although none of his predecessors aims were criminal, Hitler did indeed borrow a great deal from them, even Stresemann to an extent. He was helped by the fact that merely anyone knew that Hitler was indeed serious about his racial policies or the extent he would go to carry them out. In fact, it has been said, that once Hitler was fairly sure that he had lost the military war, he put all his efforts into winning the racial war. Despite the fact that some policies were new, these were mainly because of events that were recent, and so, Hitler, in terms of foreign policy, could definitely be described as a plagiarist.