This document originally appeared on the
Stellenbosch
Website at academic.sun.ac.za/mil/mil_history/244_1.html
This page went down in September 2010, so I have
copied it here.
These notes to accompany a Military
History unit were written by 'Ian'.

Military History Department
Study Theme 1: The Origins of the Second World War
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This study theme is designed to familiarize the student
with the causes of the Second World War. Upon completion of the series
of lectures and after studying the prescribed sources, the student should
be able to explain the following:
a. The influence of geopolitical theories, 1900-1939.
b. The influences upon the peace negotiations in Paris,
1919-1920.
c. The imperfect peace treaties concluded after the First
World War and the reaction of the various states to these treaties.
d. The expansionism (imperialism) of Germany, Italy, Russia
and Japan.
e. Distrust amongst states, power politics and the establishment
of power blocks through the conclusion of treaties.
f. The role of totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini
and Stalin.
g. The Allies’ reaction to Germany’s territorial claims
and the German invasion of Poland as immediate cause of the Second World
War.
INTRODUCTION
The Second World War is cataclysmic in terms of the broad
flow of the twentieth century. No event caused as much human suffering
and physical destruction; and provided impetus to such diverse and dramatic
change. There are several reasons for the attraction of lay and professional
historians, to the study of the Second World War:
 |
fashionable nostalgia |
 |
the background of intense ideological struggle between fascism,
communism and democracy |
 |
the decisive contribution of the war to the decline of western
Europe from the political pre-eminence enjoyed for four hundred years |
 |
the mass of public and private papers - never before have
historians been able to write so close to events with the benefit of archives |
 |
it was a peoples’ war, involving all the machinery and resources
of the modern state |
The Second World War was vital in the making of the modern
world: far more so than was the case of the First World War. It was sui
generis. Death camps were introduced for the first time. On both sides,
the war was fought with savagery and barbarism. The fighting was more destructive
than ever before - aided by the harnessing of the latest technology. The
lives of more people were disrupted, many still bearing psychological and
physical scars. The results of the war were also more far-reaching than
those of 1914-1918. The effects of the War on individual countries - and
both the victorious and the vanquished - were cataclysmic. What unleashed
this unprecedented disaster (yet also important change) upon the world?
COMPLETE EXPLANATION
Ruth Henig, in her useful little book The Origins of
the Second World War, argues that it is not easy for students to work
their way through the daunting mass of material and form a balanced historical
judgment on the origins of the war. Causal oversimplification is an easy
path for the undisciplined and educationally naïve. Yes, the six years
of Hitler’s pre-war chancellorship are crucial but any study concentrating
solely on this period must be incomplete. A complete explanation cannot
be provided without searching for long-term causes.
CAUSES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Study the prescribed material and identify the complex
of long and short-term causes of the Second World War. Remember that these
causes cannot be viewed individually: when one plucks at one historical
strand, the whole ‘web of history’ shudders.
Have you identified the following main causes:
 |
Influence of the geopolitical theories, 1890-1939 |
 |
Imperfect Peace concluded after World War I |
 |
Imperialism of Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan |
 |
Ideological Differences and Mutual Distrust |
 |
Influence of Totalitarian Leaders |
 |
Power Politics and the Formation of Power Blocks (Treaties) |
 |
The Arms Race |
 |
The Struggle to obtain/control Minerals and Markets |
 |
Allied Reaction to German Territorial Expansion |
 |
German Invasion of Poland, 1 Sep 1939 |
You will clearly note that these various ‘causes’ were of
differing duration. Any influence the geopolitical theories may have had,
can be traced back to at least the previous century; while the invasion
of Poland was clearly the precipitating cause. Now differentiate between
the long-term and short-term causes.
LONG-TERM CAUSES
Argumentatively, your division should include:
Geopolitical Theories. The Swede Rudolf Kjellen
coined the term "geopolitics". Make sure that you understand what geopolitics
is and the influence geopolitics has. In essence, according to this theory,
the direction of a state’s foreign affairs and conduct of war is determined
by its geographical character. What influence did Mahan and Mackinder have
upon the formulation of American and German strategy, respectively.
Inconclusive outcome of the First World War. The
Central Powers were clearly defeated but (most importantly) they were not
beaten.
Paris Peace Treaties. Fragility. Non-acceptance
by Germans. Who was able / willing to police the implementation of the
treaty. Relationship with Germans outside Germany’s borders.
Economic Crisis. First World War left Europe economically
weakened and politically unstable. "The allied and associated powers spent
2½ times as much to win the war as their opponents did to lose it"
(Henig, p 7). War indemnities. Currency fluctuations. Wall Street Crash
(1929).
Ideology and Distrust. Social psyche of the Germans
and their belief that the outcome of the First World War was a temporary
setback. The post-Paris states were saisonstaaten and were partly
populated by Germans. This alarmed the French particularly and increased
the disunity among the former Allies.
Disunity Among Former Allies. The Allies had common
goals but their approaches differed. The emergence of an international
ideological divide, cutting across national pre-occupations, further complicated
matters. Intensified ideological divisions sharpened social conflicts,
ultimately paralyzing Europe.
SHORT-TERM CAUSES
The short-term causes must include:
 |
Consolidation of the Nazi régime |
 |
Germany’s rearmament |
 |
The remilitarization of the Rhineland |
 |
Appeasement |
 |
The Spanish Civil War |
 |
Anti-Comintern Part (1936) |
 |
The rapprochement between Italy and Germany |
 |
The Anschluss with Austria. |
 |
The Czech Crisis. |
 |
Invasion of Poland. |
Ensure that you have a good understanding of each of the
long-term and short causes of the Second World War.
THE HISTORICAL DEBATE
The debate concerning the causes of the Second World War
started immediately, that is as early as 1945. This was induced by the
capture of large quantities of German documents and further stimulated
by the verdicts at the Nuremburg trials. And for the first decade after
the war, historians largely accepted the Nuremburg verdict: the Germans
bore sole responsibility for the war and its horrendous short-term legacy.
For example, this is clearly the thesis of Elizabeth Wiskemann, The
Rome-Berlin Axis (1949), and Alan Bullock, Hitler, A Study in Tyranny
(1952).
The only issue under debate was the so-called "appeasers"
who were portrayed as stupid, pathetic and frightened. Perhaps the most
important example is Sir Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm
(1948); whose subtitle reads as follows: "How the English-speaking peoples
through their unwisdom, carelessness and good nature allowed the wicked
to rearm." There are of course numerous other examples.
German historians, on the other hand, emphasized Hitler’s
rise to power and his unstable power base. The lack of support from German
electorate, the shabby political intrigues, use of intimidation, the ramshackle
party structure, and the resistance against the Nazi’s were recurring themes.
A major refocus in West German historiography took place following the
publication of Fritz Fischer’s Griff nach der Weltmacht in 1961.
This book which sparked the so-called Fischer controversy, was published
in English in 1967. In the wake of the controversy, West German historians
returned to a critical examination of the recent German past: with an emphasis
upon social structures.
At about the same time, the so-called Taylor controversy
flared in Britain and the United States. This resulted from the publication
of A.J.P. Taylor’s The Origins of the Second World War (1961). Taylor
added two ingredients to the debate:
 |
He argued that Hitler, far from being a uniquely villainous
German leader, continued the policy of previous German governments in seeking
eastward expansion. |
 |
For Taylor, the vital question lay in the policies of Western
leaders. He thus shifted the debate away from "Hitler the war planner"
to "Hitler the opportunist". There was also the heavy implication that
the Western leaders were at least partly responsible for the coming of
the Second World War. (Henig, pp 37-39). |
The massive reaction to Taylor’s thesis was predictable.
The debate widened considerably with most emphasis upon Hitler’s intentions
and the relevance of his writings and speeches. Other issues included German
rearmament; the German economy; British and French policy (reappraisal
of the policy of the appeasers); and the Guarantee to Poland as the precipitating
event leading to the Russo-German Pact of August 1939.
CONCLUSION
According to Ruth Henig, "there is a general agreement
amongst historians that the ambitions of Hitler constitute the major element
in the outbreak of war in 1939. Mussolini played a subordinate but by no
means unimportant role. Theirs was the primary, if not the sole, responsibility.
Considerable room for argument remains about Hitler’s aims and methods,
about the degree to which he cold-bloodedly planned for war in pursuit
of a German empire in the east, or seized opportunities that came to him,
or was a compulsive gambler who took risks for ever higher stakes. But
there is no dispute that Hitler was … in a general way committed
to expansion … and that he became the less hesitant ... in seeking new
successes" (pages 44-45).
The central debate about Hitler will continue. However,
one cannot but agree with Henig’s statement that the debate must take place
within "a broad framework which involves at the same time a careful
examination of the economic, political and social problems and policies
not just of Nazi Germany but of other leading European powers as well.
And no account of the origins of the war can ignore Japanese ambitions
and the reluctance of the United States to become involved in foreign affairs
on a global scale" (page 45).
In evaluating the causes of the Second World War, each
student must come to a personal, though reasoned, conclusion as to the
importance of each different element present in 1939 as a relative cause
of the war. Bear in mind, however, that no single cause can be studied
in isolation. The World War which erupted in 1939, was caused by a complex
web of factors of varying duration.
FURTHER READING
Anthony P. Adamthwaite, The Making of the Second World
War (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1977). Contains a short historiographical
statement and a good selection of source documents.
P.M.H. Bell, The Origins of the Second World War in
Europe (London and New York: Longman, 1986). Perhaps locus classicus
- the best book on the subject to date. Contains some theory, philosophy
and historiography. In-depth discussion of underlying forces (ideology,
economic issues, and strategy and armed forces) and coming of war in 1939.
Good guide to further reading.
Ruth Henig, The Origins of the Second World War, 1933-1939
(London: Routledge 1985). A good concise statement of only fifty pages.
Short historiographical statement.
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War
(London 1961; reprinted with new preface, 1963). The controversial opening
statement in the debate on the origins of the Second World War.
W. Roger Lewis, The Origins of the Second World War:
A.J.P. Taylor and his critics (New York, 1972) and George Martel, The
Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered; The A.J. P. Taylor Debate
after Twenty-five Years (Routledge 1986). Two good summaries of the
debate.
TEXT...