Hitlers actions while he was ruler of the Third Reich Essay Example for Free

Hitlers actions while he was ruler of the Third Reich Essay Introduction There are two schools of thought on Hitlers actions while he was ruler of the Third Reich. One says he has a blueprint of all his intended achievements1 which is based upon Mein Kampf, his autobiography written in the 1920s while the other believes that Hitler did not have any concrete plans which he followed diligently. The latter argued that he rode on opportunities and was propelled into power by circumstances rather than his own abilities. The basis of this essay is to find out which school offers a more convincing argument. Due to the wide aspects of the information and views on Hitler, the scope of discussion would be limited to Hitlers foreign policies, the various interpretations by different historians and my own analysis. One point to note is that although A.J.P. Taylor does not fall into either of the schools, his views seems slanted towards structuralist theory which would also be discussed. Anschluss To determine whether Hitler had a plan or was just waiting to cash in on opportunities, we must look at his foreign policies implemented and his autobiography, Mein Kampf, which he wrote in 19252 while serving his prison sentence. Mein Kampf could be used as a benchmark in finding out whether Hitler was following a laid-out plan. This is because Hitler had claimed so often that all his plans and goals were actually written in Mein Kampf. In Mein Kampf, Anschluss was described as the first stage in Hitlers foreign policy plans, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is true. In a speech on 30 January 1941 in Berlin, Hitler had spoken implicitly of how his intention of abolishing the Treaty of Versailles had been declared or recorded so often that it was impossible for people to not know of his programme of expansionism until 1933, or 1935 or 1937.3 Hitler had also written in Mein Kampf that he wanted to extend the frontiers of Germany to include all Germans, regardless of where they came from.4 Prior to Anschluss, Hitler had been trying to improve his relations with Italy as the latter had interfered in Austrias affairs in 1934 due to concerns about her own territorial integrity5 and. Hitler knew the importance of Italy and tried to improve relations with her. He hoped in this way, Austria would be isolated without Italy defending her. It could thus be argued that Hitler was planning for Anschluss through diplomatic pr eparations. However, Anschluss also represented Hitlers opportunism. Notes written from Goebbelss diary revealed that Hitler had kept his watchful eyes on opportunities for German expansion,6 suggesting that Hitler was always waiting for opportunities to expand German territory, an argument put across by Kershaw. In fact, it was Goering who pressed Hitler to take actions.7 Kershaw argued Goering was pushing the pace for Anschluss, perhaps for economic interests over Austria. Hitler was waiting for a crisis in Austria which would provide the excuse for German intervention and not invasion.8 This arrived on 9th March 1938, when Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg announced a plebiscite on the independence of Austria. Hitler seized this opportunity to intervene in Austrian affairs and pressed Schuschnigg to resign. The National Socialist Arthur Seyss-Inquart took over the chancellorship and formed a new government. With Austrian National Socialists in power in Austria, troops of the German Wehrmacht and the SS crossed the German-Austrian border unopposed on the morning of 12th March 1938. The proclamation of Anschluss into the Third Reich was announced the following day. Taylor argued this was a last minute decision and the belief that Hitlers seizure of Austria was a deliberate plot was a myth. He argued that the crisis was one provoked by Schusschnigg and not Hitler. Kershaw also suggested the view that the decision for annexation of Austria came only after the military invasion. The German military lacked preparations when they marched from the frontier to Vienna. The fact that 70% of their vehicles broke down9 indicated clearly there was neither military preparation nor any back-up plan. Had Hitler made any plans initially, such a situation would not have occurred. Hitlers address to the masses on the balcony of Linz town hall showed that he did not have any intentions to annex Austria.10 Kershaw suggested that the decision to annex Austria might have come from the delirious reception Hitler received at Linz. The Anschluss thus represented Hitlers opportunism where the decision to annex Austria came at the last minute. Although Hitler might have intentions to annex Austria into the German Reich long ago, it was not one of the maturing of carefully thought out plans. Thus I would find it appropriate to agree with the structuralist argue that Hitler was indeed an opportunist. Anschluss came at a point when Hitler least expected it he was smart enough to seize to seize the opportunity. Czechoslovakia Bullock had argued that following the annexation of Austria, the annexation of Czechoslovakia would be the second necessary step in the development of [Hitlers] programme for securing Germanys future11, the second objective that was discussed during the Hossbach Conference on 5th November 1937 which outlined Hitlers view of the future. It was agreed that Austria and Czechoslovakia should be taken simultaneously.12 However, this did not occur accordingly as planned. Anschluss with Austria had instead, improved Germanys strategic position in central Europe13, to allow Hitler to take over Czechoslovakia should an opportunity arise. He might have thought of using Austria to encircle the Czechs and act as a satellite in the conflicts to come14, which in some ways indicated his programme in achieving Lebensraum for Germany. Taylor argued that the conclusion which drawn from the Hossbach Conference showed that Hitler did not really have any concrete plans as to what he wanted. He might have been taking a gamble as usual, hoping that by some chance, he would be successful in achieving aims in his foreign policies. In a situation similar in Austria, I do agree with Taylor that the crisis over Czechoslovakia was presented to Hitler rather than him creating it. Hitler merely took advantage of the situation. According to Kershaw, it was the fatal calculation made by Schuschnigg that gave Hitler the chance he long awaited. Hitler seemed to be least interested in what was the next step he should undertake after the Munich conference. Evidence showing Hitler spending time at the Berghof drawing dream plans for the rebuilding of Linz15 revealed perhaps he was waiting to take over Czechoslovakia through another internal crisis. This opportunity arrived in March 1939 when President of Czechoslovakia Hacha dismissed Tiso the Slovak Premier from office and subsequently declared martial law in Slovakia. The latter then appealed to Hitler for help, who was taken by surprise by the turn of events. He was leaving for Vienna to celebrate the anniversary of Anschluss. Even Alan Bullock agreed, as he puts it, that it was not long before Hitler was able to seize the opportunity that he waited for16, showing that Hitler was relying on opportunities. Protests by the British and French ambassadors against Germanys occupation was countered by the argument that Hitler had acted only at the request of the Czech President, just as the occupation of Austria had been undertaken only in response to the telegram sent by Seyss-Inquart.17 Hitler had spent no more than three days in the process of take-over lasted no more than three days and he was back in Vienna on the 18th. Both fate and opportunity had worked in favour of Hitler once again in allowing him to complete his aims. Conclusion: The Hossbach memorandum was supposed to reveal Hitlers plans and provide a summary of Hitlers foreign policy in 1937-38. Although it indicated that Hitler had some plans in his mind, it was not very specific. Through the examination of the above examples, it would be appropriate to conclude that Hitler was an opportunist. Although much of Mein Kampf was put into action, there was doubt as to whether he was following some form of agenda or programme. Although ideas were laid out in Mein Kampf, it did not mean that they would be implemented inevitably. There was no timescale stated as to when they would be implemented too. In the words of A.J.P. Taylor, I agree that Hitler exploited events far more than he followed precise coherent plans18. Alan Bullock also believes that be it planning or spontaneity, Hitler had only one programme: the gain of power19. Thus the structuralist school which stated that Hitler did not have any concrete plans to which he diligently adhered to seems more appropriate. Most of the time, Hitler was simply waiting for opportunities which he could take to achieve his aims. Notes 1 Stephen J. Lee, Aims of Hitlers Foreign Policy in European Dictatorships 1918-1945, (Great Britain, Routledge, Taylor Francis Group, 2000, 2nd edition), p.217 2 A.J.P. Taylor, Hitler: A Traditional German Statesman, in Hitler and Nazi Germany, ed.Robert G.L. Waite( United States of America, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1966), p. 94 3 Alan Bullock, The Counterfeit Peace, 1933-7 in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, (Great Britain, Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, 1973), p. 315. 4 Ibid. p. 315 5 Gerhard L. Weinberg, German-Italian Relations and the Anschluss in The Foreign Policy of Hitlers Germany: Starting World War II, 1937-1939, (United States of America, The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London, 1980), pp.261-262 6 Ian Kershaw, Ceaseless Radicalization in Hitler 1936-1945:Nemesis, (United States of America, W.W. Norton Company, 2000), p.44 7 Ibid. p. 67 8 Ibid. p.67 9 Taylor, Hitler: A Traditional German Statesman, p.99 10 Kershaw, The Drive for Expansion, p.79 11 Bullock, From Vienna to Prague, 1938-9, p. 439 12 Taylor, Hitler: A Traditional German Statesman, p.96 13 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Hitlers War in Hitler and Nazi Germany A History, (United States of America, Prentice Hall, 2001), p. 206 14 K. Hildebrand, German Foreign Policy: from Revisionism to Expansionism in The Third Reich, (Great Britain, George Allen Unwin, 1984), p.30 15 Ibid. p.101 16 Bullock, From Vienna to Prague, 1938-9, p. 480 17 Ibid, p. 485 18 A.J.P. Taylor, Second Thoughts in The Origins of the Second World War, (Great Britain, Hamish Hamilton, 1965), p.X 19 Lee, Aims of Hitlers Foreign Policy, p. 218 Bibliography Bullock, Alan, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, (Great Britain, Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, 1973) Hildebrand, K., The Third Reich,(Great Britain, George Allen Unwin, 1984) Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1936-1945:Nemesis, (United States of America, W.W. Norton Company, 2000) Lee, Stephen J., European Dictatorships:1918-1945, (Great Britain, Routledge, Taylor Francis Group, 2000, 2nd edition) Taylor, A.J.P., Hitler and Nazi Germany, ed.Robert G.L. Waite( United States of America, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1966) Taylor, A.J.P. ,The Origins of the Second World War, (Great Britain, Hamish Hamilton, 1965) Spielvogel, Jackson J. , Hitler and Nazi Germany A History, (United States of America, Prentice Hall, 2001) Weinberg, Gerhard L., The Foreign Policy of Hitlers Germany: Starting World War II, 1937-1939, (United States of America, The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London, 1980)

Effective Use of Menace in The Merchants Tale :: Merchants Tale Essays

Effective Use of Menace in The Merchant's Tale Geoffrey Chaucer's "The Merchant's Tale" uses menace to reinforce many of the themes within the Tale and it is present in more areas than simply Januarie. There is menacing imagery adding tension to the Tale and the way in which the Tale is written often reiterates that. Menaces comes through more than plain threat, it is evident in such ideas as Januarie's inappropriate search for a wife. The way in which Januarie bases his search for a wife on concern for his own salvation and economic interests is menacing as it is a foreboding image for the rest of the marriage. His main interest lies in what he should do to ensure he experiences Paradise both alive and dead and thus highlighting his selfish nature. The economic concerns he shows for the match not only highlight this, but also his threatening lack of emotion that he is prepared to commit to the marriage. Rather than a child, he hopes for an heir, seeing only economic opportunity in any offspring. His fiancée can hope for little love for herself or any children. The suffocating nature of Januarie's so-called love for "fresshe May" means that he is unable to think of anyone else being with her. He would wish her to be "soul as the turtle that lost hath hire make". This extreme emotion only serves to heighten the irony of the affair that ensues and the previous Biblical references to women who cheated their husbands. The uncertainty caused by the fact that even the Church bids brides "be lyk Sarra and Rebekke" adds to air of uneasiness that little can be trusted. The dramatic irony that comes with the image of "warm wex" shows the hidden power of May, that Januarie knew nothing about. He is unaware that she has equal knowledge of the usefulness of warm wax and uses it to copy the key to the garden for Damyan. The deviousness of the wife is menacing as she is almost a champion of the image that has previously been so repulsive to the reader. The references that Januarie makes to images of being bound are as menacing as his private determination that on their wedding night he "wolde hire streyne". His plan to be such a physical power in the marriage is suffocating. Not only does he want to dominate physically, but his spiritual dominance in the relationship is unfair as May's views are not considered and she speaks very little.

A Character From Everyman Essay

Everyman is a medieval play written by an anonymous author. The central theme of the play is that when the time to leave the world is approaching, an individual may end up being betrayed by his or her family and friends, and only good deeds is important at the end. God and religion are also important aspects in this Middle Age drama, because it portrays Everyman’s progress from fear of death to a â€Å"Christian resignation that is prelude to redemption† (115). The characters in the play consist of subjects, verbs, and objects. The main character in the drama is Everyman, but the name is a representation of mankind in general. Everyman asks other characters to follow him on his journey to death. Firstly, Everyman goes to Fellowship who is his friend, but the first to forsake him by suggesting drinking or socializing with women instead of going on journey of death. Secondly, he asks his family members, Kindred and Cousin, to join him on his journey. However, Kindred and Cousin are disloyal to Everyman by reminding him of the things he has never done for them. Thirdly, Everyman refers to Goods, which are Everyman’s belongings. However, he is disappointed to find out that he cannot take his material possessions with him to his grave. Fourthly, Everyman calls upon Good Deeds. Good Deeds is unable to accompany Everyman immediately, but recommends first going and speaking to knowledge. Lastly, Everyman takes Good Deed’s advice and goes to Knowledge. Knowledge leads Everyman to Confession in order for Everyman to acknowledge his sin and be forgiven. Good Deeds rises again and Everyman asks Good Deeds, Beauty, Strength, Discretion, and Five Wits to join him on his journey to death. Although they all agree and follow him, they run away when they approach his grave except for Good Deeds. Therefore, by closing of the play the audience can conclude that Good Deeds is the only character who did not betray Everyman. In conclusion, Everyman is a medieval theater piece that teaches a lesson to the readers about the importance of life, which is that the things an individual does for others during his lifetime are what counts at the end of one’s life. Everyman first thought his family, friends, and belongings would be there when he dies, but realizes that none of that matters when life ends.

The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln Essay - 1646 Words

â€Å"With malice towards none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as god gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nations wounds; to care for him who shall borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphaned child-to do all which may be achieved and cherished a just and a lasting peace among ourselves, and with all other nations†-Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address (Great Documents of America 19). Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States and perhaps one of the most hated presidents that ever served, this hatred for president Lincoln came from his options and actions regarding the nation’s conflict at the time; the Civil War, this came after the†¦show more content†¦They had hoped that with the capture of the president that the Union would release captured Confederate soldiers in exchange for the safe return of the president back to the Union (law2.umkc.edu). Though his plan was ultimately foiled with General Robert E. Lee’s surrender (law2.umkc.edu). At which point it became clear to Booth that the only way to avenge the South was to murder the president (law2.umkc.edu). Booth, along with his coconspirators began to plan the assassination of Lincoln (Ito 30) these conspirators included; George Azterodt, Mary Surratt, David Herold, Lewis Powell, Edward Spangler, Louis Paine, Samuel Arnold, Michael O’Laughlen (Ito 30). Tho ugh many of these conspirators did not actually commit murder they were still however charged with the crime of assisting Booth in plotting the murder of both Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward (Ito 30). During Lincoln’s second inaugural speech, which Booth attended (O’Rilley 7) Booth became so angry at Lincoln’s words of peace, reconstruction and rights for blacks he lunged at Lincoln only to be restrained by an officer Booth then claims that he had only stumbled and the officer accepted the excuse (O’Rilley 7). George Azterodt moved from Germany when he was only eight years old (www.civilwaracadamy.com). Azterodt grew up in a town called Port Tobacco, in Charles County, Maryland (Maryland.gov/Show MoreRelatedThe Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln861 Words   |  4 PagesAppomattox Courthouse, one of America s greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, was shot and killed by a man named John Wilkes Booth. Specifically, John Wilkes Booth was an American play actor and a big sympathiser for the Confederacy. Booth was well known for his hatred towards the President and his crazy ideas and motives, which lead to the killing of Lincoln. Many conspiracies and theories today believed the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was handled by John Wilkes alone, but other conspiracies believedRead MoreThe Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln1064 Words   |  5 PagesColin Shafer Abraham Lincoln’s Assassination President Abraham Lincoln was the first United States president ever to be assassinated while in office. He was president during the Civil War and had many people that did not like him. John Wilkes Booth did not like Abraham Lincoln and was responsible for the President’s death. Abraham Lincoln was born in Harden County, Kentucky on February 12, 1809. His parents were Thomas and Nancy Hanks Lincoln. In 1818, his mother died while he was just nine yearsRead MoreThe Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln1535 Words   |  7 PagesMichael Cardenas Ritmann History 2B October 16, 2015 The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln On April 14, 1865 at twelve o’ clock midnight John Wilkes Booth lay in his bed at the National Hotel. Three days earlier he had attended a speech given by President Abraham Lincoln at the White House. The civil war had commenced just two days earlier and the crowd was jubilant. When Lincoln concluded his speech with the the acknowledgment of black suffrage, Booth became incensed and declared that â€Å"Now byRead MoreThe Assassination of Abraham Lincoln511 Words   |  2 PagesThe Assassination of Abraham Lincoln The assassination of President Abraham Lincoln occurred on April 15, 1865, Washington, D.C. Lincoln was watching the play â€Å"Our American Cousin† at Ford’s Theatre located in Washington D.C. John Wilkes Booth entered the theatre during the play and shot and killed President Lincoln. This tragic event changed history. President Lincoln was the President of the United States during the time of slavery. He was also the president during the Civil War. Lincoln wantedRead MoreThe Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln Essay1317 Words   |  6 Pagesâ€Å"Sic Semper tyrannis† or â€Å"Thus always I bring death to tyrants† were the famous words of Confederate actor John Wilkes Booth after he shot President Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln was a tragic event that will be forever remembered in the hearts of all American citizens. On April 20, 1999 in Littleton, Colorado, Booth’s words would make a comeback during another Am erican tragedy; Columbine high school was the setting for arguably one of the most notorious school shootingsRead MoreThe Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln Essay1342 Words   |  6 Pagesâ€Å"Sic Semper Tyrannis† or â€Å"Thus always I bring death to tyrants† were the famous words of Confederate actor John Wilkes Booth after he shot President Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln was a devastating event that will be forever remembered in the hearts of all American citizens. On April 20, 1999 in Littleton, Colorado, Booth’s words became a part of another American tragedy; Columbine high school was the setting for arguably one of the most infamous school shootingsRead MoreThe Assassination Of President Abraham Lincoln Essay983 Words   |  4 PagesOne of the most tragic moments throughout all American history in my opinion is the Assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. With no surprise I am writing about certain event that oc curred leading up to, during, and after this unfortunate event. This historical event is clouded with conspiracy but I will try to avoid specifics of that particular view. Abraham Lincoln was born in a little town located within Hardin Country, Kentucky on February 12, 1809 (www.whitehouse.gov/abrahamlincoln). HeRead MoreThe Assassination of Abraham Lincoln Essay913 Words   |  4 PagesAbraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States of America. He was elected into presidency on November 6, 1860. Many of the southern states were unsupportive of Lincoln becoming president because he had run on an anti-slavery platform. Lincoln being elected into presidency caused states such as South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas to split from the Union. In his inaugural address Lincoln proclaimed it was his duty to maintain the Union; a month laterRead MoreThe Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln1456 Words   |  6 Pagesbe the same today if Abraham Lincoln was never assassinated on the unfortunate night of April 14, 1865. His killer, John Wilkes Booth, had a strong resent for the Union that subsequently caused a drama tic shift in history. This hatred was caused by many factors, such as his background and where he grew up, his lust for power and fame, and his mental illness. John Wilkes Booth, a master assassinator and conspirator, hoped to strengthen the confederacy by killing Abraham Lincoln. However, this murderRead MoreAbraham Lincoln s Assassination Of President1176 Words   |  5 PagesAbraham Lincoln’s Assassination President Abraham Lincoln was the first United States president ever to be assassinated while in office. He was president during the Civil War and had many people that did not like him. John Wilkes Booth was one of those people and was the man responsible for the Presidents death. The following is about Abraham Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth, Booth’s plan for Lincoln, the President’s assassination, Booth’s capture and how it affected history. Abraham Lincoln was born