In contrast to Germany’s one party, one ideology system, France and Britain are pluralist states with a parliamentary democracy, and enjoy all the pros and cons of this system. The foreign policy in France and Britain before the war was based on a revulsion against war, support for disarmament, and attachment to the League system. (Bell, Origins, 89)
The biggest influence in France during the 20’s and 30’s was the complete rejection of war or any use of force. The strong divisions between extreme left and extreme right in French politics created a weak unstable government, and paralyzed foreign policy. This ideological conflict, and the revulsion against war, weakened French reaction to German expansion in the 30’s, and promoted the conditions in which war was very likely. (Bell, Origins, 90-100)
In Britain, like in France, the needs of power politics were obscured by ideology, but to a lesser extent. The importance placed on support for the League, and the prevailing attitude of pacifism, combined to create a belief in disarmament as the best way to secure peace. This view endured until nazi ideology became clear and there was a revulsion against their methods, and Hitler began to threaten Britain’s vital interests. (Bell, Origins, 101-109)
The preoccupation of France and Britain with peace allowed Germany and Italy to move forward with their programs until they could not be stopped without war. As the situation became clear, an ideological conflict developed between democracy and fascism, and the revulsion against what nazism stood for is an important factor in the final decision of France and Britain to go to war. (Bell, Origins, 109)
Out of all the powers in Europe, The Soviet Union was the most affected by ideology. As soon as the Soviet Union came into existence, relations between Russia and the West began to deteriorate on ideological grounds. During the 20’s, this rift grew because of the fear and mistrust of communism in France and Britain, which was intensified by Comintern activities, and the view of communists that capitalists were their enemies. The ideology of Stalinism, and the world situation in the 20’s and 30’s, created a cautious foreign policy which followed a double line of ideology and realism. To communism, the rise of fascism was not perceived as a threat since it was seen as a manifestation of monopoly capitalism in decay. In this respect, the Soviet Union, and the liberal democracies had something in common, in that they both had ideological misconceptions of fascism, and were much more concerned with each other to see the danger nazi Germany posed. The disarray the existence of communism and its international organization created, and the preoccupation of the liberal democracies and the Soviet Union with each other and their failure too see the danger Hitler posed, are two more important influences in the origins of WWII. (Bell, Origins, 111-126)
During WWII, many believed that the great depression had an important part in the origins of the war. The depression destroyed the positive economic and political developments that had been made after 1924, shattered the atmosphere of confidence and cooperation that existed in Europe, and created in its place an atmosphere of competition, and a drive for self-sufficiency. The social and political unrest that was also caused by the depression, which was especially prevalent in Eastern Europe, created fierce divisions in countries like Britain and France, and allowed Hitler to take power in Germany. (Bell, Origins, 127-132)
Because of the collapse in trade caused by the depression, Britain adopted a policy of protective tariffs, and imperial preference, thus separating her economically and politically from the continent. This collapse in trade was also one of the major economic influences that caused Britain to be against war in the 30’s. If Britain became involved in another major war, because she depended a great deal on imports, her import bill would be greatly increased, and her economic position might be irreparably damaged as it was in WWI. Also, the large markets for British goods in Germany made it economically necessary for Britain to maintain good relations with Germany, and not get involved in a war with her. Thus, all the economic interests of Britain benefited from peace. (Bell, Origins, 132-136)
In France and Russian the situation was very similar to that in Britain. Despite the fact that France depended much less on international trade, her industry was very weak compared to Germany’s during the 30’s, so her economic interests also benefited from peace. Russia’s economy was growing rapidly, but was still weak in the late 30’s since it was still feeling the dramatic effects of Stalin’s purges, and the rapid industrialization and collectivization. (Bell, Origins, 136-138)
The only exception to this was Germany, who actually had economic incentives to go to war. In the late 30’s, Germany faced an economic crisis because the extreme pace of rearmament caused an acute balance of payments and resource problem. To end this crisis Germany could easily have slowed down the pace of rearmament, but Hitler would not accept this, so the only other option was to acquire more resources by force. To acquire more resources Germany needed more arms, but to create more arms, Germany needed more resources. Thus, the belief that war could be made to pay, and the consequent German policy created a vicious economic circle, for which the only solution was to stop reaming, or start a major war. Despite all the economic incentives for war or against it, the ultimate decision to go to war was still a political one in all countries. (Bell, Origins, 151-160)
Along with the ideological and economic forces, military strategy also played an important role in foreign policy, since the actions of states are sometimes influenced by strategic considerations. During the 20’s and 30’s, the idea of war as an instrument of foreign policy was rejected by France and Britain, but in Germany, Italy, and Russia, force was used without restraint when deemed useful. (Bell, Origins, 162-166)
In France, the most important strategic assumption was that in any large European conflict, Germany would be the enemy. This made it necessary for a strategy of a long defensive war, where Germany would be overcome by the force of a coalition. This necessity for defense and a strong coalition, had a large influence of foreign policy. Because of the weakness of the network of alliances in Easter Europe, an alliance with Britain became a crucial element in France’s strategy. This policy, combined with a fear of the German military under Hitler, made the strategic influences in France very defensive and cautious. (Bell, Origins, 166-174)
Britain’s worldwide military commitments to the Empire, and the constraints placed on the size of British forces by economic factors, are two important influences in British foreign policy. With the increase in the number of enemies around the world (Japan in Pacific, Italy in Mediterranean, Germany in Europe) during the 30’s, and her already overstretched resources, Britain needed to find a way to diminish the number of potential enemies, and the danger of war. The policy of appeasement was an attempt at achieving this. Eventually however, with the increase in armaments, and the realization of the situation, this policy was changed to one of resistance. (Bell, Origins, 174-184)
One of the effect of the rapid remilitarization of Germany was the adaptation of the military to offensive purposes, which had a significant influence on foreign policy. Germany’s generals were fairly cautious compared to Hitler, but because of his consistent victories, this caution began to be eroded, and the effect was the loss of restraint on foreign policy with Hitler – who wanted a war – dictating it. With Hitler in control of foreign policy and the strongest offensive army in Europe, and the will to use it, the chances for war were greatly increased. (Bell, Origins, 188-197)
Strategic considerations also played a large role in Stalin’s decision to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact instead of recreating the Triple-Entente. In Russia, the use of force was considered an instrument of foreign policy, but since Russia’s military was weak because of the purges, Stalin had to consider the prospect of a two front war with German and Japan, and consequently he opted for neutrality with Germany. (Bell, Origins, 197-199)
The Thirty Years War thesis states that WWII began in 1939 because it was the result of the disintegration of Europe. Eastern Europe was full of potential conflicts, and was inherently unstable. Germany was beaten, but not destroyed in WWI, and because of this it maintained its aspirations and identity. The willingness of Britain and France to accept the expansionist urges of Germany and Italy for so long that it became impossible to stop them without a major war, combined with the eventual determination of the former powers to resist even if it meant war, created the conditions in which war was very likely. Why these conditions actually existed in Europe during the 20’s and 30’s can be explained by the underlying ideological, economic, and military forces, which had profound impacts of the policies of nations. In France and Britain, all the ideological, economic and strategic forces were opposed to war, whereas in Germany and Italy, all these forces were for war. The rift between the two groups created by the underlying forces made war almost inevitable. (Bell, Origins, 296-300)
In Richard Overy’s argument, each country had complex motives for their actions before the war, but the final decision was made by some overriding principle or aim unique to each country. Hitler wanted a war, but not the one his gamble created in 1939. Britain went to war to try to save her Empire and the crumbling world order she had created. The reason the revived France went to war in 1939 was to save her honor and status as a great power. Mussolini took Italy into war on the side of Hitler because he believed Hitler offered more that Britain, and that Germany had a better chance of winning. Japan’s main consideration when deciding to attack Pearl Harbor was not power politics, but honor. The U.S. went to war to protect her own interests, but also to save democracy. A very different view from this is PMH Bell’s, who states that Europe moved towards war during the 30’s because of the underlying ideological, economic, and strategic forces influencing foreign policy. Besides the interpretations discussed here, there are many other wide-ranging views on the origins of WWII. Some of these place the blame on one country like Britain, while still others look at it as a planned war, or an ideological war. There are many difficulties with any interpretation since historians only have a limited view of all the incidents created by forces and people. Despite this, new interpretations are constantly being formed from new evidence, and this will likely continue for many more years to come.
Bibliography
1)Bell, PMH. The origins of the second world war in Europe. Essex, England.
Longman Group. 1990, 7th impression
2)Churchill, Winston S. The second world war – the gathering storm. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1948.
3)Lamb, Richard. The drift to war 1922-39. London, England. St. Martin’s Press. 1991,
1st U.S. edition
4)Overy, Richard. The road to war. London, England. Butler and Tanner Ltd. 1989,
1st edition
5) The new Cambridge modern history – XII The era of violence 1898-1945. Cambridge University. Cambridge University Press. 1960, 1st edition
353