Was Hitler’s Foreign Policy to Blame for the Second World War?
Revise Was Hitler’s Foreign Policy to Blame for the Second World War? for History 0470 (O Level) — revision notes and instant AI marking. Free to start.
Was Hitler's Foreign Policy to Blame for the Second World War?
Summary — Everything in One Place
- Germany invaded Poland on 3rd September 1939, starting WWII — just 21 years after WWI ended.
- Three historical viewpoints exist: the orthodox view (Hitler planned it all), the revisionist view (Hitler was an opportunist exploiting a weak system), and a middle view (both are partly true).
- The Treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany and created the resentment that helped Hitler rise to power.
- The League of Nations failed repeatedly (Manchuria 1931, Abyssinia 1935) — proving to Hitler it wouldn't stop him.
- Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles step by step: rearmament (1933) → Rhineland (1936) → Anschluss (1938) → Sudetenland (1938) → rest of Czechoslovakia (1939).
- Appeasement — Britain and France's policy of giving in to avoid war — let Hitler get away with each of these moves.
- The Nazi-Soviet Pact (August 1939) removed Hitler's fear of a two-front war and cleared the way for the invasion of Poland.
- Britain and France finally abandoned appeasement, guaranteed Poland's borders, and declared war when Hitler invaded.
1. Context of the Second World War
Let's set the scene. The Second World War began on 3rd September 1939 — but you can't understand *why* it started without understanding the alliances and the years of build-up that came before it.
Who Was On Whose Side?
Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, and Japan (allied together)
Allies: Britain and France (joined later by the USSR in 1941, and the USA in December 1941 after Pearl Harbour)
Here's a twist that catches a lot of students out: the USSR actually started the war on Germany's side — sort of. They'd signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in August 1939 (the Nazi-Soviet Pact). It was only when Germany broke that pact and invaded Russia in 1941 that the USSR flipped to join the Allies.
Three Historical Viewpoints — This Is the Heart of the Debate
Every exam question on this topic is really asking you to weigh up these three interpretations. Get comfortable with all three, because you'll need to use them to argue both sides.
🟥 Orthodox View — "Hitler Planned It"
Hitler's foreign policy was intentionally aggressive. He followed a careful, step-by-step plan for expansion throughout the 1930s, deliberately breaking the Treaty of Versailles (Rhineland, Anschluss). The evidence: Germany's huge rearmament programme shows he was preparing for war all along.
🟩 Revisionist View — "Hitler Was an Opportunist"
Hitler was a fairly "normal" leader for the time — the Great Depression boosted support for extremist parties everywhere, and a weak League of Nations (which let Japan take Manchuria and Italy take Abyssinia) meant Hitler's actions didn't stand out. The real cause was the Treaty of Versailles — harsh enough to be hated, but too weakly enforced to keep Germany down.
Many historians argue for elements of both: Hitler was a strategist with clear foreign policy aims, but he would never have achieved them without the weakness of European leaders and the failure of the League of Nations. This "both sides" argument is usually your strongest essay conclusion.
Causes & Consequences of Hitler's Foreign Policy — The Big Picture
| Causes (fed into Hitler's foreign policy) | Consequences (what it led to) |
|---|---|
| Hitler's anti-Semitism and nationalism | The start of the Second World War |
| The weakness of the League of Nations | The Holocaust — the murder of 6 million Jewish people |
| Hatred for the Treaty of Versailles | The end of Germany as a united country (post-war division) |
| The foreign policies of Japan and Italy |
Explain the difference between the "orthodox" and "revisionist" interpretations of why WWII began.
2. Long-Term Consequences of the Treaty of Versailles
Europe's Reaction to the Treaty (1919)
Think of the Treaty of Versailles reaction as four very different moods in one room:
| Country | Initial Reaction |
|---|---|
| Britain 🙂 | Majority of the public happy with the treaty |
| France 🙁 | Felt it was too soft on Germany — didn't feel protected |
| Italy 😐 | Expected more colonies from Turkey and Germany — disappointed |
| Germany 😠 | Hated the harsh military, economic and territorial terms |
But here's the key thing to remember: by 1923, British opinion had flipped. The public began to think the treaty was too harsh on Germany, and Britain started fearing the USSR (communism) more than Germany — so they actually wanted a strong Germany to act as a buffer against communism. This shift in mood is a big reason appeasement later felt reasonable to so many British people.
The "Stab in the Back" — Dolchstoss
Many Germans believed their own politicians had betrayed them by signing the Treaty of Versailles. This belief was called the dolchstoss ("stab in the back"), and the politicians who signed it were branded the "November Criminals" — named after the month the armistice was signed. This resentment festered for years and became fuel for extremist parties like the Nazis.
The Polish Corridor physically split Germany into two separate pieces of land, and around 4 million Germans now lived outside Germany in the Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia). These weren't abstract complaints — they were daily reminders of national humiliation.
Hitler's Rise & Mein Kampf
The Treaty devastated Germany economically — reparations caused two economic depressions in a decade. As the government kept following the treaty's terms, public resentment grew, and extremist parties (like the KPD and NSDAP) gained support. After his failed Munich Putsch, Hitler was jailed — and it was in prison that he wrote Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), which laid out his core beliefs:
- Some terms had already been reversed (e.g. the Dawes and Young Plans changed reparations)
- Other countries hadn't kept their promises (e.g. France refused to disarm despite the League's aim of worldwide disarmament)
- Hitler feared the power of neighbouring countries — Germany had no air force and only 100,000 soldiers, and France had already invaded the Ruhr in 1923
- Hitler had genuine public support — the Nazi Party won 38% of the vote in July 1932, becoming the biggest party in the Reichstag
Describe the main aims of Hitler's foreign policy.
3. Consequences of the Failures of the League of Nations
Manchuria (1931) and Abyssinia (1935)
Before Hitler even started breaking rules, the League of Nations had already shown it was a paper tiger. In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria; in 1935, Italy invaded Abyssinia. Both crises taught Hitler an extremely important lesson.
- Britain and France were selfish — the Great Depression meant neither country wanted a war, and they didn't want to anger potential allies against Hitler
- The League was slow — it took 18 months to react to the Manchurian Crisis
- The League was weak — the USA wasn't even a member, and each weak response damaged its credibility further
- No real consequences — Japan ignored the League entirely and faced nothing; in Abyssinia, the League placed economic sanctions on Italy but did nothing to stop Mussolini's chemical warfare
Think of it like a teacher who keeps threatening detention but never actually gives one — eventually, no student takes the threat seriously. That's exactly the position the League was in by 1935.
Germany Leaves the League (November 1933)
Germany's exit from the League freed Hitler to pursue an aggressive foreign policy without needing to justify himself to anyone. His rearmament programme began almost immediately — and many British people actually believed Germany was right to rearm, both because the Treaty had been too harsh, and because other countries were rearming too.
By 1939, there were around 1.4 million men in the German armed forces.
Spending on armaments rose from 3.5 billion marks (1933) to 26 billion marks (1939).
Aircraft construction employment grew from 4,000 people (1933) to 72,000 (1935).
Hitler even used mass rallies — like the 1935 "Rally of Freedom" at Nuremberg, where compulsory military service was reintroduced — to openly flaunt Germany's growing military strength and thumb his nose at the Treaty's restrictions.
The Saar Plebiscite (1935)
The Saar was a coal-rich region on the French-German border, controlled by the League of Nations for 15 years under the Treaty of Versailles. Both France and Germany wanted it.
Was this a success for the League? Sort of — legally, they stuck to the 15-year time limit and avoided war between France and Germany. But it was also a huge propaganda victory for Hitler, proving his popularity even in a region with Nazi opponents — and it gave him valuable natural resources for his rearmament industries.
Remilitarisation of the Rhineland (1936)
This is one of the most important events in the whole chapter — historians often call it "the League's last chance to stop Hitler without a full-scale war."
The Rhineland, an area of western Germany bordering France, had been demilitarised under Versailles — and Germany had even accepted this again in the 1925 Locarno Treaty. Hitler used the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance (1935) as an excuse, claiming Germany was "surrounded by enemies," and marched troops in.
- The League was too busy dealing with the Abyssinian Crisis to react
- Many in Britain believed Germany had a right to put troops on its own land
- French elections meant France's government wanted to avoid conflict with Germany
The result? Hitler built the Siegfried Line (a system of fortifications) along the French border and, crucially, gained massive confidence. He'd got away with a direct, undeniable breach of Versailles — and this taught him that manipulation worked. Right after the invasion, he cleverly signed a 25-year non-aggression pact with France and Britain, with absolutely no intention of keeping it — just to look less threatening.
The Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
Civil war broke out in Spain between the left-wing government and General Franco's right-wing nationalist rebels.
| Country | Reaction | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Britain | Non-Intervention Committee | Avoid a bigger European war |
| France | Non-Intervention Committee | Avoid triggering their own civil war (nationalist sympathisers) |
| Germany | Sent weapons/aircraft to Franco | Test the new Luftwaffe; ally with Mussolini |
| Italy | Sent weapons/aircraft to Franco | Expand Italy's influence |
| USSR | Sent weapons/aircraft to the government | Stop another fascist state forming |
On 26th April 1937, German and Italian bombers destroyed the city of Guernica, killing hundreds of civilians in just three hours — this shocked world leaders and pushed Britain and France to increase their own rearmament. This war was hugely important for Hitler: Germany tested the concept of blitzkrieg ("lightning war"), developed new bombing techniques, and cemented the Rome-Berlin Axis alliance with Mussolini (1937).
Every single League failure gave Hitler something tangible: Manchuria/Abyssinia gave him confidence that he could act without consequences; Germany leaving the League gave him the ability to rearm; the Rhineland gave him the Siegfried Line and more confidence; and the Spanish Civil War gave him the Axis alliance, a testing ground for the Luftwaffe, and the development of blitzkrieg.
Why was the remilitarisation of the Rhineland important to Hitler?
4. Was the Policy of Appeasement Justified?
What Was Appeasement?
Appeasement was the policy of giving in to demands to avoid war — using diplomacy and treaties to accommodate aggressive nations rather than confronting them. Britain and France followed this policy throughout the 1930s, and it's most closely associated with British PM Neville Chamberlain (PM from 1937).
Chamberlain, like many politicians of his generation, had personally lost family in WWI (his brother was killed in 1915) — the horror of that war made him determined to do anything to avoid another one. Not everyone agreed though: Winston Churchill was appeasement's fiercest critic, famously saying:
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Arguments For and Against Appeasement
✅ For Appeasement (Chamberlain)
- Hitler could stop the spread of communism
- Britain needed time to rearm
- Hitler was just reclaiming what Versailles unfairly took
- The public didn't want another world war
- Britain couldn't afford war due to the Depression
- Hitler's demands would stop eventually
❌ Against Appeasement (Churchill)
- Hitler couldn't be trusted — he kept breaking promises
- Germany was rearming fast; better to stop him before it's too late
- Appeasement made Britain look weak
- You must stand up to tyrants, not reward them
A common exam question asks whether Chamberlain was justified in appeasing Hitler. Don't just list the arguments — weigh them. Was Britain's lack of preparedness a bigger factor than the threat Hitler posed? Argue it both ways, then reach a judgement.
A 1936 cartoon shows Hitler stepping over the backs of "spineless leaders of democracy," labelled with "Rearmament" and "Rhineland Fortification." How useful is this source to a historian studying the causes of WWII?
5. How Did Appeasement Work in Practice?
The Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935)
In April 1935, Britain, France, and Italy formed the Stresa Front, agreeing to oppose Hitler's foreign policy and challenge any breaches of Versailles. By June, it had already collapsed — the Abyssinian Crisis had ruined Italy's relationship with Britain and France, and Britain unilaterally signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with Germany.
Terms: Germany's navy could be 35% the size of the British Royal Navy; Germany could develop submarines (up to 45% of Britain's); Britain kept naval supremacy.
Impact: This broke both the Treaty of Versailles and the Stresa Front, and showed Britain wanted to protect itself rather than protect Europe from Hitler — the first true act of appeasement.
Anschluss (1938)
Around 98% of Austrians spoke German, and many felt Austria had a weak economy without union with Germany — plus there was a strong Nazi Party inside Austria itself. Here's how Hitler engineered the union:
Kurt von Schuschnigg's son later wrote that crowds on 12th March "included the unconvinced and the skeptical" — government polls actually showed 65–70% of Austrians wanted to retain independence. This directly contradicts Nazi propaganda claiming universal joyful support, and is a classic example of why you must question the reliability of a "landslide" plebiscite result achieved under pressure.
Was Anschluss a success for appeasement? It arguably reversed a harsh, unpopular part of Versailles peacefully. But Hitler gained 100,000 soldiers and vital raw materials (steel, iron) — and Germany now surrounded Czechoslovakia on three sides, setting up his next target.
The Sudeten Crisis & the Munich Conference (1938)
Why did Hitler want the Sudetenland? Multiple overlapping reasons:
- It would help "protect" Germany, since Czechoslovakia now bordered Germany on three sides after Anschluss
- Rich mineral resources plus the Skoda armament factory would boost German industry
- The Sudetenland's fortifications made the rest of Czechoslovakia much easier to invade later
- Over 3.5 million Germans lived there and claimed Czech mistreatment — fitting Hitler's Grossdeutschland and Lebensraum aims perfectly
Attended by Italy, Britain, France, and Germany only — crucially, Czechoslovakia was not invited, and neither was the USSR (which created lasting distrust between the USSR and the West). It was agreed Hitler would gain the Sudetenland, while Czechoslovakia kept the rest of its territory — a decision forced onto Czechoslovakia against its will.
Chamberlain returned declaring "peace for our time." Hitler marched into the Sudetenland on 1st October 1938.
Success or failure? It gave Britain more time to rearm, and technically many Germans lived there — but it also handed Hitler the Sudetenland's valuable defences, leaving the rest of Czechoslovakia completely vulnerable to invasion.
Invasion of Czechoslovakia (March 1939) — Appeasement's Breaking Point
By March 1939, Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia — threatening to bomb Prague if the government didn't surrender, marching in on 15th March, and encouraging Slovakia to declare independence. Crucially, this time there was no German-speaking population to justify the invasion — Hitler simply wanted more power. This was the moment appeasement finally died. Chamberlain stated on 17th March that he could no longer trust Hitler, and Britain and France began actively looking to protect other vulnerable countries.
"Anschluss was more important than the takeover of the Sudetenland in achieving Hitler's aims." How far do you agree?
6. The Importance of the Nazi-Soviet Pact
This is a genuinely shocking event in the story — two ideological arch-enemies suddenly shaking hands. Understanding why both sides did it is essential.
Why Were Hitler and Stalin Enemies?
- Opposite ideologies: Hitler was Fascist (far-right); Stalin was Communist (far-left)
- Opposing aims for Europe: Hitler wanted German domination; Stalin wanted to spread communism
- They'd fought on opposite sides of the Spanish Civil War
Yet on 23rd August 1939, they signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact (also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) — a move that genuinely shocked the world.
Why Did Stalin Sign?
- To delay war — a war between Britain, France and Germany would buy Stalin time to prepare
- To gain land — Poland had been taken from Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
- To appear strong, since appeasement made the West look weak by comparison
- To annoy the West after being excluded from the Munich Conference and distrusting Britain/France
Why Did Hitler Sign?
- To avoid a two-front war — Britain/France could declare war over Poland, and Hitler didn't want to split his troops to fight the USSR too
- To stop an alliance forming against him (Britain/France had attempted an alliance with the USSR)
- To avoid upsetting the USSR given Stalin's ruthless reputation
- To gain land — Hitler wanted the return of the Polish Corridor
- A non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, lasting 10 years
- Secret terms: Poland would be partitioned — Stalin would gain Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland; Germany would gain half of Poland and the city of Danzig
The public part of the pact shocked Britain and France — but it was the secret partitioning of Poland that mattered most. Germany invaded Poland just nine days after signing.
Other Alliances That Backed This Up
| Alliance | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-Comintern Pact | Nov 1936 | Germany + Japan against communism; Italy joined 1937 — gave Hitler a powerful, large military ally in Japan |
| Pact of Steel | May 1939 | Formal military alliance with Italy — promised mutual help in war, agreeing peace terms together |
Stalin was also increasingly worried about the power of Fascism and an old enemy — Japan (who had beaten Russia in 1904 and controlled neighbouring Manchuria). The Nazi-Soviet Pact gave him temporary protection from both Japan and Germany. But the pact was always doomed — the Anti-Comintern Pact made clear Hitler didn't actually support communism, and in 1941 he broke the pact entirely by invading Russia in Operation Barbarossa.
Explain why Stalin entered the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939.
7. Why Did Britain & France Declare War on Germany?
The British-French Guarantee of Poland (March 1939)
After Hitler took Czechoslovakia, Britain and France realised his aggressive policy wasn't stopping — his next likely target was clearly Poland. Why?
- The Polish Corridor cut Germany's territory into two
- The free city of Danzig (once German, still full of Germans) sat inside Poland — and Hitler had already demanded its return
- Hitler was clearly expanding eastwards, and Czechoslovakia bordered Poland directly
Crucially, by March 1939, Britain and France had officially abandoned appeasement — they no longer believed Hitler would stop, and had made real progress rearming. On 31st March 1939, they made a formal agreement to protect Poland's borders.
The Final Countdown to War
- Britain and France had let him get away with similar invasions before — why would this be different?
- He believed he could negotiate with Britain, promising not to invade Britain or its colonies in exchange for control of Europe
- He believed he had legitimate reasons to invade Poland (Germans in the Polish Corridor, Danzig's German history)
- He didn't think Britain was actually prepared for war
"This morning the British ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us... consequently this country is at war with Germany." — Chamberlain's radio broadcast, 3rd September 1939
Are you surprised that Germany invaded Poland in September 1939?
Pulling It All Together — Causes of WWII
| Cause | Why It Caused WWII |
|---|---|
| Treaty of Versailles | Harsh terms caused political/economic crisis in Germany; Lloyd George warned it would cause future conflict; resentment fuelled Hitler's rise to power (1933) |
| League of Nations' Failure | Proven weak and ineffective in the 1920s–30s; failed to act on Manchuria and Abyssinia, encouraging Hitler to take risks; Britain/France put their own interests first |
| Hitler's Foreign Policy | Aggressive and expansionist aims (Grossdeutschland, Lebensraum); massive investment in rearmament and the Luftwaffe made war more likely |
| Appeasement | Gave Hitler Austria and the Sudetenland against their governments' wishes and against the Treaty; made Hitler view Britain/France as weak, encouraging increasingly outrageous demands |
| Nazi-Soviet Pact | Weakened Britain and France without USSR support; gave Hitler ideal conditions to invade Poland, confident he'd only fight Britain and France, not the USSR too |
What to Memorise
Key Terms
Essential Dates
1933 (Hitler becomes Chancellor; Germany leaves League) → 1935 (Anglo-German Naval Agreement; Saar Plebiscite) → 1936 (Remilitarisation of Rhineland; Spanish Civil War begins) → 1937 (Guernica bombed; Rome-Berlin Axis) → 1938 (Anschluss; Sudeten Crisis; Munich Conference) → 1939 (Czechoslovakia fully invaded; British-French guarantee of Poland; Pact of Steel; Nazi-Soviet Pact; Poland invaded 1st Sept; war declared 3rd Sept)
Concepts Checklist
Exam Tips — Common Mistakes & Mark Scheme Traps
For "describe" questions (usually 4 marks), you get one mark per relevant point — don't waste time explaining. For "explain why" questions (6 or 10 marks), you need fully explained reasons using the PEE structure (Point → Evidence → Explain). Simply repeating your point in different words does NOT count as explaining — you must show *how* the evidence causes the outcome.
For "how useful" questions, always comment on three things: Nature (what type of source is it — cartoon, speech, photo — and what are its limitations as a source type?), Origin (who created it and when?), and Purpose (why was it created — to inform, persuade, or entertain?). Use short direct quotes from the source (with square brackets to fix pronouns) as evidence.
These always need TWO sides of the argument, each fully explained with evidence, followed by a genuine conclusion using words like "fully," "partially," or "largely." Don't sit on the fence without reaching a judgement — examiners want to see you weigh the evidence and commit to a position.
Don't treat appeasement as simply "weak" or "foolish" in hindsight — that's an oversimplification examiners will penalise. At the time, it was a genuinely reasonable response given the horror of WWI, economic constraints from the Depression, and Britain's need for time to rearm. Show you understand why it made sense in context, even while explaining its ultimate failure.
Whenever you're asked to weigh Hitler's responsibility for WWII against other factors, the strongest answers acknowledge that Hitler's aggressive aims needed the weakness of the League and the policy of appeasement to succeed. Neither factor alone fully explains the war — it's the combination that did it. This "both/and" argument, not "either/or," is what separates top-band answers from average ones.
- 7. Why Did Britain & France Declare War on Germany?
- Exam Tips — Common Mistakes & Mark Scheme Traps
- Causes & Consequences of Hitler's Foreign Policy — The Big Picture
- Hitler's Rise & Mein Kampf
- The Sudeten Crisis & the Munich Conference (1938)
Read the full Was Hitler’s Foreign Policy to Blame for the Second World War? notes free
That's the preview — create a free account to read the rest, plus flashcards and practice questions with instant AI marking. No credit card.
Unlock the full notes free →