Hitlers Foreign Policies

Hitlers Foreign Policies Ultimately Hitlers determination to transform European society brought war and destruction to Europe in 1939. Though not necessarily the war he was planning for; evidence suggests that Hitler was preparing Germany for conflict with Russia. This indication would consist of economic output towards the end of the 1930s for example, according to Anthony Wood in Europe 1815-1945, the output of steel in 1935 stood at 16.1 million metric tonnes; this by far out produced the superpowers steel industry and could imply the planning for military conflict. Hitlers policies based on lebensraum and the establishment of a racial empire on East European and Russian soil were without doubt ruthless, but did they make the Second World War unavoidable? The extent to which Hitlers foreign policies made the Second World War inevitable has constantly been under contention. A J P Taylor argues Hitler was just an average western leader, and the Second World War was at the fault of many rather than solely Hi tlers foreign policy. According to Ian Kershaw, Hitler defines his foreign policy as the art of securing for a people, the necessary quantity and quality of lebensraum Deflated from the effects of The Treaty of Versailles, German economy was crippled, the army was reduced, and they suffered from loss of Land. Germany was desperate to revoke the Treaty which brought it to its knees, and unite all German speaking countries. In protest, Hitler began a course of secret conscription, written in Mein Kampf, Hiter justified this action, Especially your people, doomed to languish along unarmed beneath the thousand eyes of the Versailles peace treaty' This action can be seen as a trigger, contributing to making the Second World War inevitable as surrounding countries felt threatened by Hitler and his determination to reverse the damages of the Treaty of Versailles. Another breach of the Treaty Hitler was able to embark on was his creation of the Air force the Luftwaffe, Taylor agrees that th e treaty is a cause of the war, Second world war was cause by the first world war, the armistice, or the Versailles treaty. Mein Kampf is a crucial element into understanding the reasons behind Hitlers foreign policy, and being able to assess if they made the Second World War inevitable. Introduced within the text, Hitler establishes the need to achieve aims in which he sees as vital to the success of the Third Reich. Hitler sought to destroy the Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany after the defeat in World War One. Hitler felt the Treaty was unfair and most Germans supported this view. Uniting all German speakers together in one country would strengthen Germany, as after World War One there were Germans living in many countries spread across Europe. Hitler hoped that by uniting them together in one country he would create a powerful Germany or Grossdeutschland. Finally, Hitler wanted to expand his ideology and population into the East to gain land and vital resources for German y, for example the tank producing factories in Czechoslovakia would prove vital if Hitler was planning for war. By signing non-aggression pacts, Hitler gave the impression he had peaceful intentions which would prevent a war. For example the alliance with the Poles, who felt threatened should Germany attempt to win back the Polish Corridor. This could suggest a triumph for Hitler, as it was evidence of peaceful negotiations which would give reason for Britain to follow a policy of appeasement. Moreover this ensured Hitler was guaranteed Polish neutrality whenever Germany should move against Austria and Czechoslovakia. However, according to John Weitz in his book Hitlers diplomat, Hitler had mentioned a definite solution to the Donzig and corridor problems. This questions if Hitler had an overall plan to attack Poland. Neville Chamberlains policy of appeasement could be seen as a mistake which eventually contributed to the Second World War as, Appeasement was partly the result of a h istory lesson too well learned. After The First World War, Europe was left devastated. Chamberlain was keen to avoid another war and sympathised with Hitler and the severity of the Treaty of Versailles upon Germany. Hitler was able to exploit Britain, as he knew they would appease and compromise with Hitler to avoid another War. Thus Hitler could fulfil his aims without the threat of immediate military intervention, Taking full advantage of appeasement the Nazis moved swiftly to annex German Austria in March 1938. The naval agreements between Britain and Germany reiterate the failure of appeasement and its role in contributing to the Second World War, Both Britain and France were reluctant to take stronger stands against German rearmament for fear that this would give the Germans all the more reason to refuse to cooperate in international efforts to maintain peace. Hitler was able to build up strength of the Navy and the Air Force. Foreign Policy encompassed the importance of racia l purity and the need for a nation to be prepared to compete with its neighbours in a fierce, uncompromising and constant struggle to survive and expand into Eastern Europe. Present in Mein Kampf, this expansion was to give extra living space to the Aryan Master Race. For example, Hitler discusses that Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil The occupation of Russia would ultimately give him living space which would provide resources for the German population and an area, in which the excess German population could settle and colonise. An additional advantage Hitler saw was that communism would be destroyed. Most historians are in cohesion that Hitler and his foreign policy caused the Second World War, However, A.J.P. Taylor, claims that Hitler never intended a major war and at most was prepared for only a limited war against Poland. Ho wever this claim is widely rejected throughout the differing interpretations. Germanys constant rhetorical on Russia is crucial to the debate. Russia was rich in raw materials such as oil which is vital for any country planning to wage war. Through realisation that Russia would solve internal problems, strengthen it militarily, and enable Germany to become economically self-sufficient by adding food and other raw material sources, The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is essential within this argument. The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union had its advantages for both countries involved. The pact meant that Germany was safe from threat of Russia and communism, but in a secret appendix Eastern Europe was divided into German and Soviet spheres of influence, fascism was safe from destruction whilst this bided time for Russia to prepare for a war. Realising the strength of the French Empire and their colonies, Hitler saw Russia as a temporary ally, until this pact was b roken when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. Another alliance signed was the Rome Berlin Axis, surrounding countries such as Poland were threatened as the aims of this threatened as territorial expansion and foundation of empires based on military conquest and the overthrow of the post-World War I international order; and to stop the spread of communism throughout Europe. The occupation and annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany revealed to Hitler the weaknesses of the allies decision making and tested how far they would be pushed before they would intervene with military action. The events leading up to the union revealed fragments in the Foreign policy of Britain and France who yet again did nothing to protest Hitlers aggressive foreign policy British attitudes were a key factor in the other problem Taylor cites, unity. It also it dealt a severe strategic blow at Czechoslovakia which could now be attacked from the south as well as from the West and North. Another example in which Hi tler recognised is the Abyssinian crisis which Britain and France failed to react towards Mussolini It had already been manifested in their reluctance to wage a full scale economic war on fascist Italy during the Abyssinian crisis, this gave Hitler the opportunity to remilitarize the Rhineland, free from threat from the other western powers, Hitlers coup in the Rhineland the vacillating recognisable pattern of weakness Hitler had given the instruction that if they met any resistance, to withdraw however none was met, And France made no move. This shows the allies as inconsistent, and seemed to be more interested in their own domestic policy rather than foreign policy, most people had the failures of their own government and the everyday worries of trying to cope with economic misery. The Hossbach Memorandum can be used as evidence that Hitler had planned for war and revenge, which would therefore suggest that Hitlers hostile foreign policies made the Second World War inevitable. Thr ough this memorandum Hitlers motives becomes clear. The aim of German policy was to preserve the racial community and gain space; this is mentioned within his works, Mein Kampf. Germany used an aggressive foreign policy force to secure the goals, his successes in foreign policy down to 1938 derived in the main from this bullys intuition, coupled with his instinctive gamblers risk This memorandum has two confliction interpretations, There have been two interpretations of this memorandum, Hugh Trevor-Roper suggest that this was Hitlers scheme for war, The Second World War was Hitlers personal war in many senses. He intended it, he prepared for it, he chose the moment for launching it whereas A.J.P. Taylor disagrees and suggests Little can be discovered so long as we go on attributing everything that happened to Hitler In conclusion, the extent to which Hitlers foreign policies made the Second World War inevitable is open to much debate. A J P Taylor argues Hitler was just an average w estern leader and the foreign policy he shaped would have been similar to that of any other German leader. The Treaty of Versailles acted as a catalyst which ultimately created more problems than in solved. Taylor argues that it was the fault of many events and different leaders, whereas other historians such as Hugh Trevor-Roper suggest that Hitlers foreign policy was fully intent on making the Second World War inevitable. The allies took a stance of non intervention, which could be argued as too little action too late, their policy of appeasement had failed and with it the League of Nations. The evidence put forward would suggest that the aggressive stance in foreign policy that Hitler portrayed was ultimately the last straw in a series of events and different circumstances which led to the destruction of the Second World War.

Aluminum :: Research Essays

Aluminum Aluminum is the second most abundant element in the Earth’s crust. It has a concentration of about 8.2 percent (Craig et al 264). Aluminum â€Å"is malleable, ductile, and easily machined and cast; and has excellent corrosion resistance and durability† (http://minerals.usgs.gov/). It is evident in everyday life. Aluminum is a very useful abundant metal. A large fraction of the mineral products we seek are metals, such as aluminum (Halleck, 1/20). The major uses of aluminum are transportation, packaging and containers, and building products. Some other uses are electrical and consumer durable goods (Craig et al 266). It is important in the use of transportation because it is lightweight, which enables more efficient use of fuels, and it is resistant to corrosion (Craig et al 266). â€Å"Commercially pure aluminum is comparatively soft and ductile†¦it has tensile strength of 13,000 pounds per square inch† when it is in its annealed condition (Hobbs 76). When the metal is strain hardened, its tensile strength is 24,000 pounds per square inch (Hobbs 76). The tensile strength can increase even more when other elements are added to the metal to form alloys. Some of these elements used for alloying are copper, iron, silicon, magnesium, nickel, and zinc (Hobbs 79). Aluminum is also common in minerals such as feldspar, mica, which are silicates, and clay. Most of aluminum production has been from bauxite. â€Å"Bauxite can form from the weathering of any rock that is aluminum bearing† (Craig et al 267). Most bauxite mining is done in tropical regions where there is not an abundant amount of cheap electricity or large markets for the aluminum production (Craig et al 268). The bauxite is crushed, washed, dried, and then shipped to processing sites. Aluminum is produced by the â€Å"electrolytic reduction of alumina in a molten bath of natural or synthetic cryolite† (Craig et al 268). This process is very energy intensive so it is done in areas where electricity is cheap. â€Å"Aluminum recovery from scrap (recycling) has become an important component of the aluminum industry† (http://minerals.usgs.gov/). About thirty percent of aluminum is recycled each year. Sixty percent of that is from new scrap and forty percent is from old scrap (http://minerals.usgs.gov/). Some examples of recyclable aluminum are automobiles, windows and doors, appliances, and cans. Aluminum is also used in many cooking utensils, electrical conductors, buildings, and in transportation industries.

Globalization Source Analysis Essay

Globalization is the process by which different societies and cultures integrate through a worldwide network of political ideas through transportation, communication, and trade. Generally, globalization has affected many nations in various ways; economically, politically, and socially. It is a term that refers to the fast integration and interdependence of various nations, which shapes the world affairs on a global level. Simply put; globalization is the world coming together. In this essay I will discuss multiple perspectives on globalization through the analysis of these three sources. Source I’s perspective is the view that through globalization; many cultures are destroyed and that this diminishes society. This source outlines a disadvantage of globalization and views it as a negative force. This can be interpreted by the examining the quote given; Octavio Paz is referring to the homogenization of culture (the blending of different cultures in such a way that the end result is one mixed culture). As globalization occurs; the inevitable result is that cultures will have to compete for dominance. Many cultures will end up losing to the dominant global culture and this will lead to the extinction of some traditional ways of life. As result we are all becoming more like one another and in this way culture dies. Source II’s perspective is the view that the English language is dominating French through globalization. The source is displaying a negative consequence of globalization. This can be interpreted by examining the political cartoon literally; English is trying to crush French with a globe. As globalization occurs; dominant global languages will easily over power other minority languages. The source may feel this way because of what’s happening in modern day Canada. Despite being a bilingual country, the vast majority of Canadians speak English as their first language. This is a result of globalization, English has, for a variety of reasons become the language of business and of the internet and is therefore favoured. French language in Canada is therefore the minority and is â€Å"dominated† by English. Source III’s perspective is the view that because of globalization, specifically Americanization (to absorb or assimilate into American  culture), transnational corporations (any corporation that is registered and operates in more than one country at a time) have become a dominant part of global culture. This source describes this as a negative consequence of globalization. The heading â€Å"Problems of Globalization†, clearly shows that the source is trying to convey a negative aspect of globalization. This can be interpreted by examining the political cartoon; the family of three each talks about the different places they’ve been and yet they have all purchased merchandise from American companies. This is possible through the fact that American transnationals have spread all across the globe and have taken up monopolies (the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service) on certain industries. This source probably feels this way because of the basic principle of economies of scale (the cost advantage that arises with increased output of a product). As a transnational becomes larger it expands to different countries and the local small businesses stand no chance of competing with wealthy transnational corporations. In this way, business is crushed and transnationals become a staple of global culture. The three perspectives on globalization that I have discussed so far each have some things in common. Each source describes ways in which globalization affects the world and society. Each source also shows the negatives effects of globalization; namely the lack of diversity and culture that is a result of globalization. From each source you can see how globalization forces us to become more like one another by integrating us into a singular culture. Sources I, II and III are all great examples of how culture spreads to different parts of the world and how the world responds to that kind of cultural interchange. In this essay I discussed three different perspectives on globalization each showing a different side to how globalization affects the world. Like everything else, globalization has its advantages and disadvantages. Whether we embrace it or not, the fact is that globalization is inevitable. The world is coming together and with that we are all becoming more alike in the way that we speak, the way we dress, and our culture in general.

Did Davy Crockett Die in Battle at the Alamo

On March 6, 1836, Mexican forces stormed the Alamo, a fortress-like old mission in San Antonio where some 200 rebellious Texans had been holed up for weeks. The battle was over in less than two hours, leaving great Texas heroes like Jim Bowie, James Butler Bonham and William Travis dead. Among the defenders, that day was Davy Crockett, former Congressman and legendary hunter, scout, and teller of tall-tales. According to some accounts, Crockett died in battle and according to others, he was one of a handful of men captured and later executed. What really happened? Davy Crockett Davy Crockett (1786-1836) was born in Tennessee, then a frontier territory. He was a hard-working young man who distinguished himself as a scout in the Creek War and provided food for his whole regiment by hunting. Initially a supporter of Andrew Jackson, he was elected to Congress in 1827. He fell out with Jackson, however, and in 1835 lost his seat in Congress. By this time, Crockett was famous for his tall tales and folksy speeches. He felt it was time to take a break from politics and decided to visit Texas. Crockett Arrives at the Alamo Crockett made his way slowly to Texas. Along the way, he learned that there was much sympathy for the Texans in the USA. Many men were heading there to fight and people assumed Crockett was, too: he didnt contradict them. He crossed into Texas in early 1836. Learning that the fighting was taking place near San Antonio, he headed there. He arrived at the Alamo in February. By then, Rebel leaders such as Jim Bowie and William Travis were preparing a defense. Bowie and Travis did not get along: Crockett, ever the skilled politician, defused the tension between them. Crockett at the Battle of the Alamo Crockett had arrived with a handful of volunteers from Tennessee. These frontiersmen were lethal with their long rifles and they were a welcome addition to the defenders. The Mexican army arrived in late February and laid siege to the Alamo. Mexican General Santa Anna did not immediately seal the exits from San Antonio and the defenders could have escaped had they wished: they chose to remain. The Mexicans attacked at dawn on March 6 and within two hours the Alamo was overrun. Was Crockett Taken Prisoner? Here’s where things get unclear. Historians agree on a few basic facts: some 600 Mexicans and 200 Texans died that day. A handful—most say seven—of Texan defenders were taken alive. These men were swiftly put to death by orders of Mexican General Santa Anna. According to some sources, Crockett was among them, and according to others, he was not. What’s the truth? There are several sources that should be considered. Fernando Urissa The Mexicans were crushed at the Battle of San Jacinto about six weeks later. One of the Mexican prisoners was a young officer named Fernando Urissa. Urissa was wounded and treated by Dr. Nicholas Labadie, who kept a journal. Labadie asked about the Battle of the Alamo, and Urissa mentioned the capture of a venerable-looking man with a red face: he believed the others called him Coket. The prisoner was brought to Santa Anna and then executed, shot by several soldiers at once. Francisco Antonio Ruiz Francisco Antonio Ruiz, the mayor of San Antonio, was safely behind the Mexican lines when the battle began and had a good vantage point to witness what happened. Before the arrival of the Mexican army, he had met Crockett, as the civilians of San Antonio and the defenders of the Alamo mingled freely. He said that after the battle Santa Anna ordered him to point out the bodies of Crockett, Travis, and Bowie. Crockett, he said, had fallen in battle on the west side of the Alamo grounds near â€Å"a little fort.† Jose Enrique de la Peà ±a De la Peà ±a was a mid-level officer in Santa Anna’s army. He later allegedly wrote a diary, not found and published until 1955, about his experiences at the Alamo. In it, he claims that the â€Å"well-known† David Crockett was one of seven men taken prisoner. They were brought to Santa Anna, who ordered them executed. The rank-and-file soldiers who had stormed the Alamo, sick of death, did nothing, but officers close to Santa Anna, who had seen no fighting, were eager to impress him and fell upon the prisoners with swords. According to de la Peà ±a, the prisoners â€Å"†¦died without complaining and without humiliating themselves before their torturers.† Other Accounts Women, children, and slaves who were captured at the Alamo were spared. Susanna Dickinson, the wife of one of the slain Texans, was among them. She never wrote down her eyewitness account but was interviewed many times over the course of her life. She said that after the battle, she saw Crockett’s body between the chapel and the barracks (which roughly corroborates Ruiz’ account). Santa Anna’s silence on the subject is also relevant: he never claimed to have captured and executed Crockett. Did Crockett die in Battle? Unless other documents come to light, well never know the details of Crocketts fate. The accounts do not agree, and there are several problems with each of them. Urissa called the prisoner venerable, which seems a little harsh to describe the energetic, 49-year-old Crockett. Its also hearsay, as it was written down by Labadie. Ruiz account comes from an English translation of something he may or may not have written: the original has never been found. De la Peà ±a hated Santa Anna and may have invented or embellished the story to make his former commander look bad: also, some historians think the document might be a fake. Dickinson never personally wrote anything down and other parts of her story have been proven questionable. In the end, its not really important. Crockett was a hero because he knowingly remained at the Alamo as the Mexican army advanced, boosting the spirits of the forlorn defenders with his fiddle and his tall tales. When the time came, Crockett and all of the others fought bravely and sold their lives dearly. Their sacrifice inspired others to join the cause, and within two months the Texans would win the decisive Battle of San Jacinto.​ Sources: Brands, H.W. Lone Star Nation: The Epic Story of the Battle for Texas Independence. New York: Anchor Books, 2004. Henderson, Timothy J. A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and its War with the United States.New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.