Compare and contrast the Foreign policy actions of Mussolini and Hitler until 1939.

Mussolini and Hitler were two aggressive right wing dictators with big plans for their respective nations.  Both leaders came to power partly by them exploitation of their nations’ resentment of the injustices of the Paris Peace Conferences The two dictators’ foreign policies were geared to achieving great power status.  Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in 1933 and made his intentions clear. He was determined to dominate Europe and make Germany a great power again. Hitler planned on destroying the Treaty of Versailles as he and the rest of Germany felt it was too harshly imposed on them. He also sought out Anschluss – the unification of all German speakers together in one country. The treaty of Versailles separated Germans who lived in countries such as Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, and Hitler had the firm intention of reuniting them. Another one of Hitler’s main aims was to expand to the east into Poland and Russia in order to gain more living space for Germany. Similarly Italy felt that they had been treated unfairly at Versailles and wanted to change the status quo.  Mussolini had the goal of restoring Italy’s pride, but unlike Hitler, he didn’t want to restore it to how it was a decade or two ago, but back to the glory and power during the Roman Empire. In order to do so Mussolini wanted to unify the lands he already had whilst also expanding the empire. He strived to restore the pride after Italy was defeated in Adowa in 1886 and take Abyssinia. In order to do so Italy’s military needed to be built up. Mussolini strived for autarky, he stated that he wanted Italy to be “free from the slavery of foreign bread” He aimed to acquire territory rich in resources and lands for cultivation in order to gain this self sufficiency along with wealth.

Hitler and Mussolini utilized similar tactics to get what they wanted. They turned to the threat of violence and aggression to achieve their aims. In 1922 Italy didn’t particularly exert strong influence into Europe, and Mussolini sought out to make amends to that. In August 1923 Italian delegates were sent to Corfu on behalf of the League of Nations to sort out a border conflict between Greece and Albania. They were assassinated by Greek nationalists, resulting in Italy demanding 50 million liras in an ultimatum, and their occupation of Corfu. The other European powers, particularly Britain demanded that Italy withdrew. This event proved that although they were capable of bullying smaller countries, Italy still proved to be no match for the more powerful countries in the league.  In 1924 Mussolini saw success when through the pact of Rome, Italy was granted a long term target of theirs – Fiume, an Italian speaking town previously in Yugoslavia (and presently in Croatia). Mussolini renewed his interest in Albania and gave it a strong Italian influence. Their mineral resources were exploited, Italian loans supported the Albanian government and economy, and Italian military leaders trained the Albanian army. In 1929 Mussolini went ahead and successfully invaded Albania. Initially Mussolini was careful to not agitate Britain and France and he ‘posed as a good neighbor’ for them. Although he had little interest in treaties, Mussolini stuck with the League of Nations and signed the Locarno treaties in which Germany’s western borders were defined, and entered the Kellogg-Briand pact in 1928 in which the signatories promised not to turn to war to resolve their disputes. In order to achieve the level of superiority that he sought after, Mussolini realized that he needed to form allies and strengthen its armed forces. Thus Italy signed a friendship treaty in 1927 with Hungary. Italy began providing Hungary with weapons, and each state swore to back the other one up and assist in case of any future plans of aggression for the next decade, and it was renewed in 1937, proving that the friendship proved to be valued and beneficial to both parties. Mussolini had plans to expand his fascist regime outside of Italy and started funding right wing groups in Germany, in the hope that a pro-fascist group would get to power.  By the 1930’s Italy showcased its shift in attitude and became aggressive not just in the Balkans, but now in Africa and Western Europe too.  Italy’s foreign policy became hostile, due to frustrations of their limited gains from the outcome of World War I.  The Fascist regime was ready to challenge Europe and become ‘great, respected, and feared’.

 During this time Hitler was in Germany, riling the country up, gaining support by attacking the ‘harsh’ rules imposed by the Treaty of Versailles and promoting Pan-Germanism, Anti-Communism, and Anti-Semitism. When Hitler came to power in 1933 he withdrew Germany from the League of Nations, mostly because it was trying to pursue policies of disarmament and peace – something Hitler was not looking for.  One of the biggest differences between Mussolini and Hitler regarding their foreign policies is that Hitler was in power for considerably less time than Mussolini therefore he constructed his foreign policies in a short period time, and executed them in a lot more compact time period in comparison to Mussolini. However although it is the well planned foreign policies of Hitler that made him the feared leader was, something Mussolini strived for, he proves that over ambitious foreign policies also lead to your downfalls.  Initially Mussolini prevented Hitler from gaining control of Austria by putting troops on the Brenner Pass when the Austrian chancellor Dollfuss was murdered. This gives Italy international praise. As mentioned before Mussolini still wanted to keep its relations with Britain and France intact, and joined the Stresa pact with them in 1934, promoting an anti German attitude. As they tried to stop an early attempt of Anschluss on the Austrian borders, Italy was one of the only countries to take military action against Germany.

In 1935 The Anglo-German Naval Agreement was formed with the intentions of bettering the relations between Britain and Germany. This allowed for German naval expansion and for Hitler to be able to break up the Stresa front. Although first appearing calm and polite to other leaders, Hitler’s true intentions began to become clear. 

In 1935 Mussolini demonstrated his thoughts on using violence to get what you want when Italy went ahead and undermined the League of Nations, and proceeded to invade Abyssinia in 1935. Originally Britain complied and said that Italy could go ahead and take Abyssinia as Italy deserved a colony due to the Treaty of Versailles. However Britain changed their mind and said that Abyssinia would go to the League of Nations. However this proved how Italy had gained so much power that Britain didn’t impose sanctions as they didn’t want to aggravate Italy. Similarly Hitler followed the same method and disobeyed by remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936.

Hitler's imperial policy stressed the idea of race, whilst Mussolini's imperial thinking was dated, and related back to the late nineteenth-century 'scramble for Africa'. And whilst Hitler had wanted lebensraum, a greater larger Germany, in order to receive economic benefits, Mussolini's colonial policy in Abyssinia was based upon his desire to create Italy as a world influence. Despite the fact that the majority of Africa was already claimed, another key factor that motivated Mussolini's decision to invade Abyssinia was due to his desire for revenge to the defeat Italy experienced in 1896. This suggests that nationalistic pride was one of Mussolini’s main priorities. It overrode his desire for economic gain, Italy’s imperial adventures in Africa did very little to achieve any economic power for Mussolini, especially in comparison to Hitler's policy.

One thing in common Hitler and Mussolini had was their dislike of communism. There was a clear divide political ideology in Europe with liberal democracy in the west, communism in the USSR and fascism in countries such as Italy, Germany and Japan. Hitler and Mussolini were more than happy to step in and assist Franco in Spain in 1936 to gain control of the Spanish state and crush communism. It was this year that the Rome-Berlin Axis was formed and Mussolini formally aligned Fascist Italy with Nazi Germany. Both dictators actively intervened in the war, giving their support for communism, bringing them closer together. Hitler helped Franco transport his troops to Spain, offered air support and military supplies. Mussolini on the other hand supplied Franco with 75,000 troops, planes, tanks, and weapons. Setting the anti-communism aside, a contrast between Hitler and Mussolini was their alternate intentions for helping Franco. Mussolini was more concerned with the pride of playing an important role in the plight of crushing communism.  Unlike Hitler he didn’t benefit economically. After agreements with Franco, Hitler managed to grant himself 75% of Spain’s ores, with these resources he could prepare himself for the upcoming big war.  After his experience with Hitler assisting Franco, and with the previous disagreements with Britain, Mussolini began siding with Hitler. In 1937 Mussolini proceeded with his anti-communism relationship with Hitler and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. The pact detailed support in the case of attack upon Japan or Germany by the Soviet Union. They also swore to not make any political treaties with the Soviet Union. The signatories of the pact, Germany, Japan, Italy and other countries such as Hungary and Bulgaria, formed the Axis powers. Mussolini had officially swapped sides from being with the future ‘Allies’ to being with the Axis powers.  

When Hitler went to invade Austria again in 1938, Mussolini welcomed him. Shortly after Hitler managed to gain Sudetenland, which then belonged to Czechoslovakia, but was inhibited by ethnic Germans. In order to get the land Hitler sent an ultimateum with his demands and states that there would be 10 days to satisfy them. Chamberlain mobilizes but the Western powers are hesitant to start war and want to resolve the issue peacefully. Hitler declines this; therefore the Western powers have little time to organize themselves, so Chamberlain managed to get Mussolini to successfully persuade Hitler to delay the attack by one day. Mussolini was heavily thanked for his assistance, and even requested by Chamberlain to be present at a four-power conference in Munich where the issue would be resolved.  This event proved to be successful for both Mussolini and Hitler as they accomplished their aims. Hitler  was granted ‘permission’ to take the Sudetenland, and Mussolini was an accomplished power who was requested to take part in a main European power conference- Britain wanted Italy to be present so that Mussolini could influence Hitler to make the ‘right’ decisions.

In 1939 Mussolini and Hitler took their relationship to the ‘next level’ as they signed the Pact of Steel. Italy and Germany agreed to an official military and political alliance. Mussolini pledged to support “Germany in the event of any future war regardless of the circumstances.” (Russell Tarr) The signatories of the pact, Germany, Japan, Italy and other countries such as Hungary and Bulgaria, formed the Axis powers. Mussolini had officially swapped sides from being with the future ‘Allies’ to being with the Axis powers. Although they formed their alliance and their foreign policies highlighted one another, Mussolini was more vague and opportunistic in his foreign policies whilst Hitler was more clear with his intentions. Mussolini didn’t have firm concrete aims unlike Hitler – he just had the general idea of what he wanted to to. Hitler was more racially motivated in his foreign policy. Originally Mussolini didn’t particularly have an opinion on the matter but was under pressure from Hitler and influenced. Hitler’s foreign policy was cunning and he was able to manipulate countries, and not fear their reactions.  Mussolini on the other hand was cautious and didn’t want to provoke the great powers. 


 Russell Tarr essay in History today: 'The foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini' (2009) http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5041018527

Why did Germany lose World War I?

Despite what they believed at the time, there are numerous factors as to why Germany and her Allies lost the First World War. The U.S’ involvement in the war, setbacks in the military, an ineffectiveness of alliance system, and a strain on economy and morale are just a few of the main casual factors towards Germany’s defeat. All of these factors put together are certainly not a recipe for success, but what I believe really gave Germany and her allies the big push towards defeat was the lack of a strong well thought out plan, as well as alternative strategies.

I think that Germany’s overall downfall started from the root, with the Von Schlieffen Plan. Count Alfred von Schlieffen devised the Von Schlieffen plan after the Franco-Prussian war, to be used in future war circumstances in which Germany would attempt to avoid fighting on two fronts – the Russian and French. In order to do so they planned on swiftly defeating the French first in the west, and then quickly rushing over to the east and reaching the Russians before they had time to mobilize. With the outbreak of the First World War Helmuth von Muoltke, Schlieffen’s successor attempted to execute the Von Schlieffen plan. Confident with their only strong plan, the Germans were shocked to see that it was flawed. They had thought that it would have taken Russia six weeks to mobilize, whilst when the plan was put into action, it only took the Russians ten days to mobilize. Another factor that the Germans had failed to consider was resistance. The German General staff did not expect Belgium to resist invasion and when they went in to attack on the 2^nd of August 1914, they were surprisingly held up by the Belgium forces, with the help of the British. The Germans had failed to consider Britain or any other nations’ involvement in their invasions. They thought that the British army was simply a joke, and that the British would never fight. The Von Schlieffen plan also assumed that France was easily defeated in the span of six weeks. Of course unfortunately it took the Germans four years of war to prove that France wasn’t quite as easily defeated as they’d expected. Ultimately the Von Schlieffen plan failed due to the fact that it was based entirely on flawed assumptions, and once the Germans realized this, it was too late and they’d already pushed themselves into the deep end, having to commit themselves to the war in which they planned on winning in six weeks, with no plan B. Germany wasn’t the only country within her allies with a unsuccessful plan. Austria-Hungary’s plan R intended on sending huge forces over to Russia, where at first they managed on capturing areas, but then retreated within a week, leaving behind heavy guns and ammunition. Austria-Hungary also faced vast numbers of causalities as it was beaten during its attack on Serbia.

Not being prepared to commit themselves to a long-term war is what resulted in Germany’s economic difficulties. As Germany became united as one country, it became one of the most powerful countries in the world. Their industry came from steel and coal, and they strived for more power, in the form of colonies and land. Germany entered the war on the upper hand with a strong economy, but finished the war with it left completely devastated.

The Allied Naval Blockade made a huge impact on the German economy. The British had the strongest navy, and they controlled the North Sea with their dreadnoughts. The British took advantage of the fact that only the North of Germany wasn’t land locked, and Germany was prevented from using 64 percent of her merchant fleets, and eventually cut Germany off from trading her allies. Without the sufficient supplies, the German citizens began starving. It got to a point where the Germans became hungry and fed up. Their faith in the Kaiser had vanished and despite their anger and ‘stab in the back theories’, put pressure on the government to stop fighting. The British successfully cut off Germany’s supply of nitrates, which were essentially used for the production of explosives and fertilizers, leading to a shortage in weapons. Another disadvantage of long-term war that Germany wasn’t prepared for was the constant demand for more men to fight. Unfortunately for the Germans it took a toll on their labour. At a point a lack of fodder resulted in pigs being fed what was available – grain and potatoes. This wasn’t considered legal as the food could have been used for human consummation, therefore the German government ordered the slaughter of mass slaughter of pigs. A third of Germany’s pigs were killed, resulting in a lack of pork, and prices going up. In order to prevent the prices going up the German government ordered for set maximum prices for foods, outraging the farmers and influencing them to cut supplies. The government then had to resort to meat and bread rationing, and there were a significant amount of deaths estimated in Germany, around 300,000 due to malnutrition. During the first beginning years of the war the German army was well fed and looked after, whilst the people at home starved. It is said that in 1916 48,700 cows were killed for civilian consumption, whilst the army consumed 147,000 per month. By the time the long-term effects of the war starting kicking in, the German army was eating cabbage soup.

In terms of feeding its country, Germanys biggest flaw was that it was simple unprepared for war, and when it did hit the country the government failed to take the right actions to ensure the German people food and a sustained economy. As soon as Germany’s U-boats cut off Britain’s supplies in 1917 the Corn Production Act was passed, which guaranteed minimum prices for wheat and oats. The outcome of the Corn Production Act ensured that Britain had enough food for its country, whilst Germany’s situation was chaotic; a shortage of cotton led to a demand in wool which led to the ban of Sheep slaughtering which led to yet more decrease in the food supply. Of course Germany wasn’t the only country with this crisis during the war – Germany’s ally Austria-Hungary had suffered severely bad harvests. Although Germany had its own troubles, it also faced the burden of Austria-Hungary’s constant request for help. This paralleled the United States’ strong availability to easily constantly stock up its allies with supplies.

One of Germany’s biggest mistakes, I believe, was angering the Americans. German U-boats were used with the intention of fighting off the British Blockade, and an attempt to starve the British people themselves by having their own attack on the British economy by cutting off their trade, but also found themselves attacking neutral American ships. Despite the U.S’ constant threats and warnings towards Germany concerning sinking their boats, Germany proceeded to torpedo a large passenger ship, the RMS Lusitania that resulted in a loss of American lives. The American public was outraged by the military alliance that Germany publicly offered Mexico in the Zimmerman telegram. This particular U-Boat incident was the final

straw for America, and it turned the American public against Germany, pushing their decision for to join the “war to end all wars” as American President, Woodrow Wilson called it. As America entered the war, Germany’s chances of winning were slim, and with little developments going on as each side held up their own it was only a matter of time that an armistice was signed. Another one of Germany’s great disadvantages during the war was the lack of good leadership. Germany’s Zimmerman and Schlieffen were no match for the clever minds of their opponents, Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson. Germany knew fully what it was getting into by riling America but did not favors for themselves as once again, that had falsely made an assumption, as they believed that they would have won the war by the time that the United Stats had mobilized. They had the brilliant ideas of introducing machine guns and gases, the warfare reached a point where it stood still and stopped progressing, Germany failed to come up with offensive weapons. The use of tanks created great pressure for Germany and caused them great damages militarily.

Germany stood their ground and managed to resist defeat for a considerable amount of time. Eventually the Germans signed the armistice that called an end to the war. In conclusion, if you consider Germany’s overconfidence, awful plan of action, and its terrible outcome, along with its inadequate leadership, unstable allies and weak economy it comes to no surprise that Germany failed to succeed in World War I. It is often questioned though, if Germany and her allies really lost. Despite ‘losing’ militarily and politically, Germany was able to leave the war looking somewhat like a victim. Personally I believe that Germany did lose the war in general sense, because they failed to do what they sought out to do, and then were severely punished. What surprises me is that the Germans didn’t believe that they had actually lost the war, and that they were simply to sign a treaty because everyone was sick and tired of fighting. They only realized that they had lost when the treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919 and they were faced with the harsh burden of war reparations and total blame for the war. Despite being completely unprepared for long-term war, Germany managed to resist defeat for a considerable amount of time. What I believe made Britain successful in the war, in the sense of conserving food and the Corn Production Act, was that it had previous experiences therefore knew how to organize itself in such a situation. After experiencing the First World War, Germans would be able to improve on things that were flawed the first time around as the Second World War comes shortly after. Unlike the first time, I’m sure that before going into war they would have learnt from their mistakes and prepared themselves. My theory as to why Germany lost World War I is purely my opinion and is definitely not the only reason. The factors mentioned are simply the causes that stuck out to me as the most significant reasons, and my opinion is also hindered by the fact that I get over such a strong new country, who’s doing considerably well, risking everything to execute a plan conceived simply on assumptions. There are numerous factors towards Germany’s downfall; most of them are debatable and dependent on opinion. Although it’s not my opinion, as mentioned before, it’s even debatable whether or not the war was even lost by Germany.

Analyze the social situation of any one European country throughout World War One.

During World War I, Britain fought as one of the Allied powers, which originally consisted of the Triple Entente – The United Kingdom, France, and the Russian Empire. Minor members, such as Italy, Japan, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Belgium, later joined them. They successfully defeated the Central Powers (The German Empire, The Austro-Hungarian Empire, The Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Bulgaria.) In order to do so, the United Kingdom was forced to completely reorganize their army, introduce the RAF, and go into a state of total war. The British army increased drastically in size due to conscription. In an effort to protect the civilians of Britain, the Defence of the Realm Act was passed in the early weeks of the war. Under this act censorship was implemented and the British public were prohibited to do things that they would ordinarily do, such as fly a kite, buy binoculars, feed wild animals, discussing official war matters, lighting a bonfire, and pubs were given a curfew.

The influx of media boosted British morale during the war, as newspapers and propaganda flourished. Fortunately for the British they recognized early in the war that they needed propaganda in order to have advantage over the Germans. In 1914 the War Propaganda Bureau was created, and produced numerous official documents, posters, speeches, books, pamphlets and even realistic films about the war – all made a big impact on the civilians’ impression and view of war. Under the Defence of the Realm Act, newspapers were restricted on what they could publish. Despite this, the public craved news on the war and sales of the Daily Mail increased from 800,000 a day in 1914 to 1.5 million in 1916. New Magazines, including The War Pictorial, and The War Illustrated, reported news of developments in the war, and as the names of the magazines suggest – images and illustrations of the war in action. British war poets gained the attention of the public – whether they were there fighting and dying for their country, such as Issac Rosenberg, Wilfred Owen, or a woman, such as Vera Brittain expressing the pain of losing a loved one in the war.

**