Essay on Was the Second World War Inevitable?

Interpretation 1 and interpretation 2 have varying opinions on why the Second World War was inevitable. Interpretation 1 argues that the treaty of Versailles made war the only option whereas interpretation 2 argues that without Hitler it would have been impossible for another war to occur. I believe both interpretations have strengths and weaknesses however I do not fully agree with either of them. 

Interpretation 2 states that it is hard to see how any war could have been started without the influence of Adolf Hitler on Germany as he had complete control over the entire country.  This can be shown by the fact that disagreeing with Hitler’s Nazi ideology was considered treason and would be tried in the people’s court, a judicial system where all the judges were sworn to be loyal to Hitler and wore the swastika from 1936 onwards. This meant that disobeying Hitler’s ideas would inevitably lead to prosecution and harsh punishment meaning that nobody dared disagree with Hitler. Furthermore Adolf Hitler had demonstrated his ruthlessness for those who disobeyed him with the Night of the Long Knives on the 30th June 1934  as he ordered the killing of the leader of the SA at the time, Rohm, along with dozens of others. This would have meant that any other person of power in Germany would have felt too threatened to take a direct stand against Hitler. This means that as nobody was willing to disappear Hitler, all decisions regarding war were definitely his, showing that Hitler had the final say over wether or not to cause a war, making interpretation 2 seem very accurate. 

This however is contrasted by the weaknesses and flaws in the argument of interpretation 2, which are exposed if we examine it in more detail. For example interpretation 2 says ‘a single plan directed by a single man was executed’ however this is contrary to the fact that there were dozens of senior officials involved in the Nazi party by the time war was declared in 1939, meaning that any plan was not just formulated by one man, but rather a team of men. This means interpretation 2 is significantly less accurate than before. Furthermore, in the 1930’s Britain and France took a policy of appeasement towards Hitler, allowing him to unite Germany and Austria as well as claim the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. This would have meant that Hitler might have overlooked Britain’s threat about war if he invaded Poland and believed that it was an empty threat due to Britain and France’s previous lack or resistance to Hitler plans. This means it is possible Hitler didn’t want war and didn’t do as interpretation 2 might suggest and ‘individually pushed the world towards global war’. This once again makes interpretation 2 look inconsiderate and inaccurate, and is why I believe interpretation 2, while it has some strengths, is not a reasonable argument to make on why world war 2 was started. 

Another interpretation as to why war started is interpretation 1, which states that war was made an inevitability by the treaty of Versailles as it stoked immense feelings of resentment within Germany. 

This interpretation is made to look accurate by the fact that the Nazi party rose to power due to the policies they supported, including the 25 point program, point number 1 of which was scrapping the treaty of Versailles . This shows that resentment due to the treaty of Versailles is what enabled Hitler to come to power, thus supporting the point interpretation 1 makes ‘it made the election of the NSDAP to power…. Ultimately inevitable’ and making interpretation 1 look very accurate. This point of view would be further supported by the fact that one of the main reasons Hitler began taking power in Austria and Czechoslovakia is that there were displaced former citizens of Germany living in those counties. Those citizens which enabled Hitler to take power were initially displaced by one of the conditions of the threat of Versailles meaning that once again the treaty of Versailles is a direct link to Hitler acquiring power and making was unavoidable. This overall makes interpretation 1 look very accurate however there are once again weaknesses to this interpretation which mean I cannot fully support it.

While interpretation 1 may initially seem very accurate it also has weaknesses to it which mean I cannot fully support it as an interpretation. One example of this is where interpretation 1 says ‘it stoked extreme feelings of resentment within the German population’ however this is not totally  accurate as if there was such a huge amount of resentment for the treaty of Versailles, an extreme power should have come into power much sooner, however no such party came close until 1929. This is shown by the fact the the Social democrats, a non extreme party, consistently had the most seats in the Reichstag between 1924 and 1929. This shows that the treaty of Versailles, while a prominent and damaging event in Germany’s history, did not trigger the success of extreme parties such as the NSDAP as they did not rise to power for over a decade after the treaty was signed. Furthermore, if the treaty was properly upheld by Britain and France, and Germany was not allowed to get more than 100,000 soldiers within the army, then no world war would have been possible anyway, showing that the treaty itself caused issues but did not guarantee the the start of a war as interpretation 1 would suggest. Overall, this means that while the arguments proposed by interpretation 1 may initially seem logical, they cannot fully explain the start of the war and therefore I cannot support this interpretation fully. 

Overall, while both interpretations carry some thought out and reasonable arguments, neither can totally explain why war broke out in 1939, and so therefore I cannot agree with either of them. I would say that while the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler were both key factors in stating a war, war would never have actually have been possible if Britain and France upheld  the treaty and did not opt for a policy of appeasement.