Feature

Nazi aggression
planned or improvised?
Hendrik Karsten Hogrefe

Historians have tried for decades to understand how far

A copy of the first edition of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
the Second World War was planned by Hitler. Much has
been written and debated as to whether or not Hitler’s
ideas evolved into an overall blueprint, which he intended
to follow. Hendrik Hogrefe considers the extent to which
Mein Kampf and the Hossbach Memorandum have been
used by historians as evidence of a Hitler blueprint, and
how valuable these sources may be in studying German
foreign policy in this period.

S
ince the 1960’s, there have been two main schools
of thought on this subject. According to the ‘fanatic’
view, expressed by historians like Hugh Trevor-
Roper, Hitler aimed consistently at expansion and war.
His Lebensraum policy has been emphasised since the
days of his imprisonment, and naturally struggle and war
were seen to be vital to its success. Trevor-Roper believes
Hitler had a clear vision that involved a master plan for war
and he completely controlled the events that culminated
in his attack on Poland in 1939. The evidence for this
interpretation comes from Mein Kampf and, according
to Trevor-Roper, the ideas expressed in Mein Kampf and
the Zweite Buch – Hitler’s secret book which was never
published – are the keys to understanding German foreign
policy after 1933. However, some historians suggest that
these books only express broad aims that Hitler still held
when he became Führer.
The ‘opportunist’ view has been expressed most
controversially by A.J.P. Taylor. He argues that Hitler
had no blueprint for aggression. Instead, he was an
astute and cynical politician who took advantage of the
mistakes and fears of other leaders and his apparent
fanaticism was an act. According to this view, Hitler was
in the mainstream of traditional German foreign policy,
which had been expansionist since the second half of the
nineteenth century. Taylor claims this is a development
of the arguments of German historian Fritz Fischer who
maintains that Germany was expansionist from before
1914 and that there was continuity in German foreign
policy aims up to 1939. According to Taylor: “The foreign
policy of National Socialism merely re­stated the German

Hitler accepts the ovation of the Reichstag announcing the

‘peaceful’ acquistion of Austria. It set the stage to annex the
Czechoslovakian Südetenland, largely inhabited by a German-
speaking population. Berlin, March 1938.
National Archives and Records Administration

6 The Historian / Winter 2011

 Nazi victory parade, Warsaw, Poland. 5 October 1939.
United States Federal Government

Problem.” ideas for the recovery of Germany as all, have in mind only Russia and its
To an extent these two views have a major power after the humiliation of subjugated border states.” This action
been reconciled. The synthesised and the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919. of gaining Lebensraum was bound to
balanced view can be found, among D.G. Williamson acknowledges the provoke a conflict with Poland and
others, in the writings of Alan Bullock importance of Mein Kampf, emphasising Russia. The dreams of an optimal
who maintains that Hitler had a that, while the document does not alliance policy also expressed in Mein
consistency of aim and that it “never specifically state future policies, it Kampf strongly suggest that alliances
changed from its first definition in Mein expresses ideas that have inherent links should be forged with England and Italy
Kampf.” However, Bullock claims there with his plans for the future. However, it in order to outplay France.
was never a definite blueprint to achieve would be illogical to assume that Mein Mein Kampf ’s reliability is
this aim. Hitler was an opportunist in his Kampf was a precise plan of action for unquestionable, although not in terms
methods, and also in his effort to restore Hitler’s foreign policy once he was in of what the policy actually consisted of
German military power, expand its power after 1933. Hitler could not be during the period, as it was written a
frontiers and create living space. Bullock certain in 1924 that he would ever have decade before Hitler had the power to
also claims that he was an opportunist in the power to implement such policies. turn his dreams into reality. However,
his firmness of purpose, strong will and Hitler’s long term aims in foreign as a stimulus for future policy Mein
readiness to threaten, bluff, gamble and policy were to expand Germany’s Kampf is reliable as it was written by the
fight to achieve these aims. According borders and to gain “Lebensraum,” same man who instigated the policies
to Bullock, opportunism was Hitler’s and this meant eastward expansion. being studied. Equally important
weapon in fulfilling his aims. While he He clearly states this vision in Mein in determining the reliability of the
may have employed time limits, using Kampf and the intended direction of this alternative interpretations of the book
what Bullock calls “one at a time tactics,” expansion was also made abundantly is the consideration that the original
he never used a timetable. clear: “We put a stop to the eternal was written in German. Translation into
Mein Kampf is a mixture of movement of the Germanic people English lays open the risk of altering and
autobiography and political philosophy. to Europe’s South and West and we misunderstanding the original text in
It contains Hitler’s ideas and beliefs, and turn our eyes to the land in the east.” some ways. For example, the translator
he writes about issues concerning the More specifically: “In speaking of new of the Pimlico edition, Ralph Manheim,
German race and nation, as well as his territory in Europe, we can, above states: “There are certain traits of Hitler’s

The Historian / Winter 2011 7

Feature
Hitler announces the Anschluss to 200,000 Austrians in the Heldenplatz, Vienna, 15 March 1938.
Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive), Bild 183-1987-0922-500

style that are peculiarly German and in oratory rather than in writing. For adapted previous ideas as circumstances
do present a problem in translation”. Hitler there was little hope his writing changed. This therefore suggests that
He goes on to state: “No non-German would win over great support. This is Mein Kampf may not be the most
would write such labyrinthine sentences” largely due to the fact that Mein Kampf valuable source from the point of view of
and that Hitler’s writing is cluttered is “lengthy, dull, bombastic, repetitious what actually happened in foreign policy
with “useless little words like: wohl, ja, and most of it extremely badly written”. during the period. Only when used in
denn, schon, noch, eigentlich,... which Bullock shares the view of numerous conjunction with other sources does
he strews about quite needlessly”. These historians who are quick to highlight the one see the real value of Mein Kampf
words have no English equivalent and weaknesses of the writing, its literary in determining where the stimulus for
are, therefore, lost in translation. inconsistencies and poor construction. Hitler’s foreign policy originated and for
A study of the German version of Due to Hitler’s inarticulation, care must seeing how close he came to achieving
Mein Kampf and the English translation be taken when analysing Hitler’s words, his aims.
confirms that Manheim’s ‘useless ensuring that what he was expressing Hitler disliked writing and so
little words’ indeed make a material was what he really felt at that moment there are no vast files of Führer
difference in a German sentence. They in time. Any false interpretation in correspondence for historians to study.
can underline and accentuate certain this area may reduce the value of Mein He made no margin comments on
statements, which makes them appear Kampf as a source for the study of official documents, but preferred to
more direct and powerful. Their Hitler’s foreign policy. Nevertheless, the discuss problems unofficially with close
presence makes a strong difference historian J.C. Fest places much value on friends. It is therefore very difficult to
to Hitler’s intended meaning. This this source by going so far as to state: trace the development of his ideas for
is, however, only something that the “the work contains an exact portrait of the future. He distrusted his diplomats
German reader can perceive. These little its author”. He also summarises Mein and by the late 1930’s did not keep a
words are usually employed orally and Kampf as “partly an ideological tract, diary and wrote few private letters or
do not normally appear in written texts partly a plan of action ... it nevertheless memoranda. Consequently, historians
as often as in Mein Kampf. The South contains much involuntary truth”. Fest are left with Mein Kampf and the
Germans and Austrians are especially therefore suggests that in writing Mein few existing records of confidential
addicted to these ‘little words’, and they Kampf Hitler exposes some of his ideas addresses in the 1930s to high-
can be found in almost every one of for future foreign policy. In the preface ranking party officials, businessmen
Hitler’s sentences. This is one factor of the 1943 edition Hitler claims that and army commanders. Of these, the
that removes some authenticity from the book was a plan, or as he put it, the memorandum written by Colonel
the working English source. However, “aims” of Nazism. On the other hand, Hossbach is of special significance. This
the core language of the English version the claims of “opportunist” historians controversial document, known as the
still provides an insight into Hitler’s like A.J.P. Taylor suggest that in the “Hossbach Memorandum”, is a summary
mind, demonstrating how his talents lay period 1933-1939 Hitler would have of a secret meeting on 5 November 1937

8 The Historian / Winter 2011

 Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler
between Adolf Hitler and his military that certain types of autarky were not
leadership. He clearly wanted those possible can thus be considered a reason
attending to regard his words as a for regarding the war as something
political testimony in the event of his of a necessity. The second part of the
death. It outlines some of Hitler’s future document detailed three ‘contingencies’
hypothetical expansionist policies in that Hitler would take if certain
Europe in response to differing possible situations prevailed in Europe in order to
circumstances. The memorandum was ensure the security of the Reich. Beyond
found by the US military in the ruins that, Hitler claimed that Britain and
of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin in France were blocking German foreign
1945 and a shortened version was used policy goals at every turn and some time
at the Nuremberg trials. It has, however, in the next five years or so, Germany
limited credibility as the minutes were would have to achieve autarky by seizing
drawn up five days after the event by eastern Europe to prepare for a possible
Colonel Hossbach, from his memory, war with the British and the French.
and not by his secretary directly after Historians, however, are divided
the meeting, as was usually done. In fact, over the two main interpretations
no minutes of this meeting were meant of the meeting which are: firstly the
to be taken as Hitler’s closest advisers Hitler’s blueprint for war interpretation
had been pledged to secrecy. Hitler mainly supported by Trevor-
would certainly have ordered them to Roper and Shirer, and secondly the
be destroyed if he had become aware “daydreaming” interpretation which is
of their existence. Therefore, it could most controversially expressed by A.J.P.
be argued that either his opinions were Taylor. The question is therefore asked
more freely expressed than if he had as to whether this can all be dismissed as
been at a normal minuted meeting, or hypothetical at one particular moment
that he was more concerned about being in time with Hitler just thinking out
restricted by his generals and foreign loud and testing the reactions of his
minister because of their concerns generals. Taylor claims: “Hitler was just
about the strains of rearmament. In fact, ranting and saying nothing new. He
historians are divided over the purpose wanted to avoid a discussion on steel
of the meeting as to whether it was shortages with Hjalmar Schacht (his
planning for war or a political power economics minister who was worried
struggle. This view considers that the that rearmament was overheating the
Hossbach meeting was more concerned German economy), which is what the that Hitler did have long term objectives
with internal political wrangling and meeting was supposed to be about. presented in the Memorandum which
Hitler was testing out his ideas on his Dates were wrong, Russia was ignored included war, and they believe that
generals. and France did not suffer a civil war.” Taylor’s approach is too narrow. Trevor-
All this, unfortunately, diminishes Taylor, therefore, disagrees that the Roper argues that Mein Kampf is clear
the reliability of the Memorandum. memorandum was the blueprint proof for Hitler’s later plans after 1933-
Nonetheless, it is often used by for war, for which so many were 34 and that the Memorandum reiterates
historians, who want to prove that Hitler looking. He believes that the Hossbach the theory of Hitler as a “master
had consciously planned the Second Memorandum contained no plans for planner” as early as 1923-24, when he
World War, and the consequences war, arguing that: “The Memorandum wrote Mein Kampf. Bullock states that,
that followed. However, structuralist tells us what we know already, that contrary to a common misconception,
historians would argue that when Hitler intended Germany to become the Hitler did not want war with Britain
his suspicion of the lack of a serious dominant power in Europe. It also tells and France in 1939. What he wanted
response by Britain and France after us that he speculated how this could was small wars of plunder to help
he took the Rhineland was confirmed happen. His speculations were mistaken. support Germany’s struggling economy
in March 1936, then it allowed him to They bear hardly any relation to the (although the Nazis never broadcast
exploit the opportunity, and therefore actual outbreak of the war in 1939.” their financial problems). Hitler wanted
led to the Hossbach Memorandum Many writers accepted that Taylor a full scale European war with Britain
and plans for war. Hitler outlined his had shed important light on some of and France by no later than 1943, before
war plans based on possible scenarios; the political crises among the Nazi Germany’s rivals were fully rearmed.
in other words, it was a hypothetical leadership that preceded the Second This can be seen in the Hossbach
policy and this therefore raises the World War, but his overall thesis Memorandum and thus it would prove
question about how reliable the provoked widespread controversy. his aggressive intentions as early as 1937.
memorandum is as a source. The first Prominent historians refused to accept This raises the question of whether there
part of the document stressed the idea that major pieces of evidence, such was intent on Hitler’s part to start a war
of Lebensraum and Hitler’s aim to as Hitler’s statements in Mein Kampf rather than just a hypothetical scenario;
preserve the racial community and gain and in the Hossbach Memorandum, the Allies at Nuremberg certainly
space. It also minuted Hitler’s wish that could simply be set aside. Therefore, in defined it as intent.
Germany becomes an autarky. This contrast with Taylor, Hugh Trevor-Roper Historians like Shirer and Trevor-
was considered as a way of preparing argued strongly that Hitler considered Roper state that Hitler had a blueprint
Germany for conflict, by ensuring himself not merely a practical politician, for war as early as 1924. With regard
that it was not economically reliant on but a thinker, a practical philosopher of a to Mein Kampf, Shirer states that Mein
states with which it could soon be at new age of history. Trevor-Roper and his Kampf acted as a warning and blueprint
war. The memorandum’s suggestion like-minded colleagues are convinced of future Nazi intentions. Shirer strongly

The Historian / Winter 2011 9

elaborates on the messages in Mein approach was not that of a chess player. 1939. When this had been achieved,
Kampf: “The book contains... an outline He was, as A.J.P. Taylor suggests, a he focused his attention straight
of the future German state... and high-risk gambler, for whom the concept away on Poland, provoking a crisis
how... the new Reich was to regain her of policy based on collective decision- which eventually would lead to war
position as a world power and then go making was an alien concept. in September 1939. The speed and
on to world mastery...” Shirer also often Mein Kampf was intended to further consistency with which Hitler moved
employs quotes from Mein Kampf as educate people who were already in the from one crisis to the next suggests that
a proof for Hitler’s intentions to drive Nazi Party about its aims and future much more than clever opportunism
eastward into Russia as early as 1924. development and Hitler states this was at work. It is simply not credible to
“If we speak of soil in Europe today clearly in both the preface of the original think that Hitler could, by accident, have
we can primarily have in mind only and the English translation. However, moved Germany from the situation it
Russia and her vassal border states”. it is strange that Mein Kampf, and its had been in during 1933 to that in which
He also cites Mein Kampf as proof that limited-use as an early propaganda it found itself in 1939. A.J.P. Taylor may
Hitler clearly planned “Anschluss” all tool to recruit new members into the have dismissed Mein Kampf as the ‘day
along. A.J.P Taylor, however, argues Party, stands in some contrast with the dreaming’ of a marginal right-winger,
that this was nothing other than writings of Karl Marx and how they and certainly not everything that
unreliable “daydreaming” and that were indirectly used to convert millions Hitler aspired to in the book actually
events followed the course they did due of people to Communism. It seems odd came to pass. But even if it is agreed
to circumstances rather than the clear that Hitler invested so much energy and that Mein Kampf does not contain a
intentions of Hitler. According to Taylor, time in producing such a long-winded detailed timetable, and even if it is
Hitler was profoundly influenced by the and repetitive book which was merely acknowledged that it is impossible to
needs of the moment. He was an astute, preaching to the converted, and not see in it a consistent set of plans, it must
cynical politician who took advantage of originally intended to win over new be recognised that, in broad terms, the
other leaders’ mistakes and fears. Taylor support for the movement. Perhaps it vision which Hitler outlined in this book
argues that Hitler’s projects as outlined could be suggested that Mein Kampf and in the Hossbach Memorandum
in the Hossbach Memorandum were in was in fact written as some form of self- bears a striking resemblance to the
large part daydreaming and unrelated to justification, and to make people take broad policies of expansion, aggression
what followed in reality. In his opinion, him seriously as an original thinker. This and violence he pursued from 1933
Hitler was once again gambling on some is a view which is supported by Bullock onwards. Perhaps the best way to think
twist of fortune which would lead him who suggests that few contemporary about Nazi aggression is not as the
to success. In other words, his view is readers had their interests awakened product of a careful, detailed planner,
that Hitler’s apparent ‘fanaticism’ was an by Mein Kampf. Yet all of Hitler’s later but also not simply the product of
act, made more plausible by rhetorical foreign policy moves can be found in short-term opportunism either. A more
statements. Shirer’s views on Hossbach Mein Kampf and so Bullock suggests apt description of Hitler’s aggression
state that the meeting was “the decisive that World War Two could have been in the 1930s was that it was the work
turning point in the life of the Third predicted in 1924. of a visionary, a man with a vision of
Reich.” Shirer also claims that Hitler a German dominated Europe towards
had said it all “ten years before in Mein Conclusion which he was working throughout his
Kampf”, and that now he was setting out Neither Mein Kampf on its own, nor political career, and which he would use
on the road of the conqueror to fulfil his the Hossbach Memorandum on its any means to achieve.
destiny. own, may be as valuable a source as
The nature of Hitler’s charismatic many might think for studying German Further reading
leadership is another factor to be taken foreign policy during the years 1933- Hitler, A. (1996) Mein Kampf. (English
into account when analysing the motives 39. Only when used in conjunction Translation by Ralph Manheim with a
behind his foreign policy. Hitler was with other sources does Mein Kampf new introduction by D.C. Watt) London,
driven by the need for constant success have some value in determining where Pimlico.
and that is what he achieved in his the stimulus for Hitler’s foreign policy Bullock, A. (1962) Hitler: A Study in
foreign policy, taking over one country originated, and for seeing how close he Tyranny. London, Penguin.
after another, at first without even came to achieving what he generally Fest, J.C. (1977) Hitler. London, Penguin.
the need for war. Hitler’s apparently intended to do. Nevertheless, what Hitler Shirer W.L. (1960) The Rise and Fall
sensationally effective ‘coups’ in foreign achieved in the later 1930’s seems to of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi
policy were fundamental to his hold bear a considerable resemblance to the Germany. 1983 edition. London, Book
on the German people. By 1938, if one aims he set out in Mein Kampf and the Club Associates.
‘coup’ did not swiftly follow another, Hossbach Memorandum. Moreover, Taylor, A.J.P. (1961) The Origins of the
there was a sense, even among ordinary when placing these events in the context Second World War. Middlesex, Penguin.
German people, that Hitler’s grasp was of the 1930’s, then the case for seeing Trevor-Roper, H.R. (1947) The Last
slipping. The essence of Hitler’s style Hitler as someone who was propelling Days of Hitler. Seventh Papermac edition
was the method of conducting foreign towards war from the outset seems even 1995. London, Macmillan.
policy by sudden moves, often carried stronger. Williamson, D.G. (1982) The Third
out at weekends and designed to catch As soon as Hitler had succeeded Reich. Harlow, Longman.
potential opponents off guard. He in annexing Austria in March 1938,
adapted the methods of the street­wise he turned his attention in September
agitator- methods that had brought 1938 to the Germans living in the
him success on his road to power- Südetenland. Once he had achieved Hendrik K. Hogrefe is a history
to his application of foreign policy. their integration into Germany, via undergraduate at the Universities of
Undisciplined and often slothful in the Munich agreement, he quickly Goettingen and Cambridge.
his personal lifestyle, Hitler was not a proceeded to dismember the rest of
calculating long-term planner and his Czechoslovakia, invading it in March

10 The Historian / Winter 2011