Evidence supporting the view that internal pressures from the Nazi party caused Hitler to start a war (3)
- Radical ideology demanded expansion
Core Nazi beliefs like Lebensraum (living space) required territorial conquest, especially in Eastern Europe. Party members expected Hitler to deliver on these promises. - Maintaining support and unity
By the late 1930s, Hitler needed continued successes (e.g., Anschluss and the Munich Agreement) to keep party elites loyal. War could unify the party and distract from internal rivalries. - Appeasing more radical figures
Individuals like Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Göring supported aggressive expansion, pushing Hitler toward more extreme actions.
Evidence against the view that internal pressures from the Nazi party caused Hitler to start a war (2)
- Hitler dominated the system not the other way round (Fuhrerpinzip, prerogative state) e.g. key decisions were personally made by Hitler and opposition within elites (Blomberg-Fritsch) did not stop him
Evidence supporting the view that internal pressure from businesses caused Hitler to start a war (3)
- Major firms such as Krupp and IG Farben benefited from expansion and supported rearmament
- Desire for resources and markets from the east
- Economic dependence on militarisation: By the late 1930s, the German economy was heavily geared toward war production. Continuing peace risked economic slowdown, which created pressure to justify and sustain this system through conflict.
Evidence against the view that internal pressure from businesses caused Hitler to start a war
Many business leaders preferred stability and profit, not risky conflict.
Firms like IG Farben and Krupp benefited from rearmament without needing war.
War risked disruption of resources. Business often adapted to Nazi policy, rather than driving it.
Evidence supporting the view that economic considerations and structural pressures caused Hitler to start a war
- Limits of the rearmament economy
Programs like the Four Year Plan aimed at preparing Germany for war but strained resources. By 1939, Germany faced shortages (e.g., oil, food).
Avoiding economic crisis
Rearmament reduced unemployment, but it wasn’t sustainable long-term without expansion. War offered a way to seize resources and avoid a downturn.
Autarky failure
Nazi attempts at economic self-sufficiency (autarky) were incomplete. Conquest was seen as a solution to this problem.
Balance of payments problem
Evidence against the view that economic considerations and structural pressures caused Hitler to start a war
- He believed in the primacy of politics: Hitler cared little about economic statistics but instead about ideological and political goals
- Four Year Plans was causing problems but not crisis as such
Evidence supporting the view that war was a solution to internal instability
It could be used as a suppression of dissent and unify the population - strengthening the Volksgemeinschaft
Evidence supporting the argument that ‘time pressure’ made Hitler start war (2)
- The UK Began rearming around 1934-36 and accelerated significantly in 1937 (formal, large-scale rearmaments programmes were launched by the Baldwin govt in 1935 with rapid expansion after the 1938 Munich Crisis, France started rearming in 1938)
- Hossbach memorandum Hitler said to strike before 1943 when its enemies could be stronger
Evidence against the argument that ‘time pressure’ made Hitler start war
- Hitler took major gambles (e.g. Rhineland) without major time constraints and changed plans opportunistically often
- Timing influences decisions but did not force them
