ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR

The Second World War that was fought between 1939-45 between the Allied Powers and the
Axis powers remains one of the most gruelling wars in world history. The extent of damage to
life and property and the reordering of world powers have resulted in this subject becoming the
centre of debates for decades. According to Frank McDonough, the Second World War
comprised two separate wars: a European war and an Asian-Pacific conflict. The historical
debate is overwhelmingly dominated by the larger European conflict, but the Asian-Pacific war
has also developed a very lively sub-debate.

THE EUROPEAN WAR

The debate around the origins of the Second World War was kindled by A. J. P. Taylor’s in his
classic book entitled The Origins of the Second World War. Taylor claimed that Hitler was not
an evil monster who moulded events to fit his master plan, “he was just an ordinary German
statesman”. He put forward an equally controversial view of appeasement, which he saw as
being a logical and realistic assessment of the failings of the past, and as being a
genuine attempt to solve them. The war broke out not because of Hitler’s design, but because of
Chamberlain’s blunders. These controversial views set the debate on the origins of the Second
World War alight.

HITLER’S ROLE
The debate over Adolf Hitler's personality and foreign policy aims in the context of the Second
World War largely divides historians into two camps: the orthodox view and the revisionist
perspective. Orthodox scholars like Hugh Trevor-Roper and Alan Bullock argue that Hitler
pursued a consistent foreign policy agenda, aiming for territorial expansion and the
implementation of the 'final solution' to the Jewish question. They propose the idea of Hitler
following a 'master plan' or a combination of long-term goals and opportunism. Recent support
for the staged plan theory, suggested by scholars like Andreas Hilgruber and Klaus
Hildebrand, adds complexity to understanding Hitler's strategic objectives, including dominating
Europe and confronting the USA.

On the other hand, revisionist scholars like Karl-Dietrich Bracher and Hans Mommsen
reject the portrayal of Hitler as a masterful dictator with complete control over foreign policy.
Bracher challenges the notion of Hitler's omnipotence as largely a Nazi propaganda myth, while
Mommsen suggests Hitler's foreign policy was more reactive to internal divisions than part of a
coherent plan. Revisionists highlight institutional disagreements and bureaucratic chaos within
Hitler's Germany, portraying him as indecisive and weak in the face of conflicting interests.
However, they struggle to demonstrate how these internal dynamics limited Hitler's freedom of
action in foreign affairs.

Continuity in German Foreign Policy

According to various historians, Hitler and Nazism lacked deep roots in German history. Ritter
suggests that Nazism imported anti-Semitism and social Darwinism from outside Germany.
Eley highlights Hitler's foreign policy as a sharp departure from the past, coupling expansion
and extermination. Namier and Taylor view German desire for European dominance as a major
cause of both world wars. Fischer argues for continuity in German foreign policy, tracing
concepts like Lebensraum back to pre-1914 times. The old Junker class's disdain for socialism
aligned with Hitler's right-wing agenda. Overall, Hitler represented a blend of old and modern
elements in German history.

BRITISH POLICY OF APPEASEMENT

The orthodox view of appeasement, presented in "The Guilty Men" by British left-wing writers
under the pseudonym Cato, portrays Chamberlain as the main culprit for surrendering to
Hitler's bullying. Middlemass criticizes Chamberlain's policy as resting on the false belief that
Hitler's aims were limited. Revisionists expand the analysis to include social, economic, and
strategic factors, arguing leaders were constrained by circumstances like a shortage of skilled
workers and public opposition to rapid rearmament. Dilks suggests appeasement aimed for the
best while preparing for the worst, shifting it from a shameful surrender to a logical and realistic
policy. Ultra-revisionists even see it as potentially preventing post-war British decline.
Adamthwaite suggests French policy focused on security, while Young argues France aimed to
avoid war, relying on defense and diplomacy, partly due to fear of losing British support.

MUSSOLINI’S ROLE
Mussolini's Italy played a significant role in the events leading to the Second World War by
undermining the Paris Peace Settlement, aiding Franco in the Spanish Civil War, influencing
the Munich Conference, signing the Pact of Steel, and shifting from neutrality in 1939 to
joining the war on Hitler's side in 1940. Historians like A.J.P. Taylor view Mussolini's foreign
policy as ineffective. Cassel argues Italy lacked the resources for a decisive lead, forcing it to
seek a balance among major powers. Mack Smith suggests Mussolini signed the Pact of Steel
to pressure Britain and France for imperial gains, remained neutral in 1939 to keep options
open, and joined Germany in 1940 to capitalize on potential victories.

SOVIET QUESTION
The ‘German school’ holds the Soviet Union significantly responsible for the start of World War
II, arguing it gave Hitler the ‘green light’ for aggression. American historians like William
Langer view the Nazi-Soviet Pact as enabling Hitler's war plans. Robert Tucker suggests
Soviet policy aimed to incite war among capitalist states for territorial gains. In contrast, Soviet
historians, such as Jonathan Haslam, argue Stalin's policy focused on ‘collective security’
against Hitler, hindered by Britain's and France's appeasement and delay in forming an alliance.
These interpretations are influenced by Cold War hostilities.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARIS SETTLEMENT

The orthodox view sees the Paris settlement as a flawed compromise between President
Wilson's idealism and the European powers' realism and selfishness. E.H. Carr argues its
main weakness was not resolving the 'German problem,' and A. J. P. Taylor believes the Treaty
of Versailles was harsh and lacked moral validity, contributing to the Second World War. In
contrast, revisionist Ruth Henig considers the settlement a commendable effort that failed due
to the severe economic and social issues following the war.
ECONOMIC INTERPRETATIONS
The role of economic factors in causing the outbreak of the Second World War is debated.
Marxist historians argue that the war stemmed from an unresolved economic crisis in capitalism,
with German capitalists supporting Nazism to protect their interests. Non-Marxist historians
largely reject this view. Hildebrand contends that Hitler marginalized industrialists politically.
David Kaiser suggests Nazi occupations aimed to secure economic resources, while Richard
Overy believes Germany's economic issues in the late 1930s were not severe and that the
decision for war in 1939 was driven by Hitler's ambition to dominate Europe.

THE ROLE OF IDEOLOGY

According to the proponents of the role of ideology, each of the countries had a distinct ideology.
The Soviet Union was led by Marxist-Leninist ideas who advocated socialism and world-wide
revolution. Britain, France and the USA were democratic nations with free elections, capitalist
economies, and foreign policies which favoured peace. These deep ideological differences
made international harmony very difficult to achieve. Flannah Arendt sees the emergence
of totalitarian states as the key cause of the Second World War. For other scholars, fascist
tendencies drove countries into war. However, McDonough expressed his displeasure at trying
to fit the regimes of Germany, Japan and Italy into a single concept of fascism.

THE ASIA-PACIFIC CONFLICT

The origins of the Asian-Pacific war are debated, with the Tokyo War Tribunal portraying
Japanese leaders as deliberate instigators. Revisionist historians, however, challenge this view.
The detailed Japanese study, "The Road to the Pacific War," based on over 5,000 documents,
suggests a complex mix of factors, including the war with China, the US oil embargo, and
European colonial opportunities, drove Japan's expansion into Southeast Asia. Akira Iriye
highlights the conflict between Japanese ambitions and US efforts to curb them. Hosoya
describes the Pearl Harbor attack as a desperate gamble amid deteriorating US-Japan
relations in 1941. Paul Schroeder sees Roosevelt’s embargo as a provocative act, while Frank
McDonough argues Japan was unwilling to negotiate over China or Southeast
Asia

The narrative of the Second World War unfolds through a series of pivotal events that
shaped the course of history:

1. Treaty of Versailles: Imposed heavy reparations and guilt on Germany, leading to

resentment and the rise of Ultra-Nationalism.
2. Failure of the League of Nations: Inability to prevent military aggression highlighted its
shortcomings, paving the way for unchecked expansionism.
3. Rise of Fascism and Nazism: Fascism, spearheaded by Benito Mussolini in Italy,
capitalized on nationalist sentiments and promised effective governance, presenting
itself as a bulwark against communism. Meanwhile, Nazism, led by Adolf Hitler in
Germany, espoused a racist form of fascism, advocating for the overturning of the
Versailles Treaty and the expansion of German territory. Upon assuming power in 1933,
 Hitler's regime embarked on a campaign of extermination against ethnic minorities,
particularly targeting Slavs and Jews.
4. Policy of Appeasement: Reluctance by Britain and France to confront Hitler's
aggression emboldened his expansionist aims.
5. Outbreak of War: German invasion of Poland triggered the start of World War II, marked
by the 'phoney war' period in Western Europe.
6. Non-Aggression Pact and Winter War: Surprising alliances and conflicts reshaped
geopolitical dynamics in Europe.
7. Fall of France 1940 Germany's rapid invasion of France, Belgium, and Holland,
supported by advanced tactics and superior technology, led to the signing of an armistice
with France, showcasing the effectiveness of the German military despite Allied
numerical superiority.
8. Battle of Britain 1940- This was the first war to be fought solely in the air. German took
decisions to attack from airfields and factories to the major cities, but somehow the
Royal Air Force managed to squeak a narrow victory. This ensured the - ultimately
indefinite - postponement of the German invasion plans.
9. Global Expansion: Axis powers' invasions in various theaters expanded the conflict
globally.
10. Reversal of German Fortunes: Major defeats at Stalingrad and in North Africa
weakened the Axis powers, leading to Allied advancements.
11. End of the War: Germany's surrender in 1945, followed by Japan's surrender after
nuclear bombings, marked the end of World War II.

Conclusion
The Second World War, occurring from 1939 to 1945, was shaped by a myriad of historical
factors. Stemming from the aftermath of World War I, the Treaty of Versailles inflicted heavy
burdens on Germany, fueling resentment and Ultra-Nationalism. The League of Nations' inability
to prevent military aggression allowed the rise of Fascism and Nazism, spearheaded by
Mussolini and Hitler, respectively. Hitler's expansionist aims, emboldened by appeasement
policies, triggered the war with Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939. The conflict unfolded
globally, with shifting alliances and battles reshaping geopolitical dynamics, leading to significant
defeats for the Axis powers and their eventual surrender. The war's narrative underscores the
profound influence of ideologies, diplomatic shortcomings, and military strategies in shaping
historical outcomes and restructuring global powers.