To What Extent Was the Second World War in Europe Decided by Economic Factors - Essay Example

Name To what extent was the Second World War in Europe decided by economic factors? Date To what extent was the Second World War in Europe decided by economic factors? War has always had great consequences to people, their social and businesses. However, people communities and countries have favored it as the best way to create equality and stability so that normal life can prevail. Coppieters & Fotion stated that The World War I caused a big surprise to the world with its impacts. Even though, the guns shots went in 1918 after Armistice of Compiegne, its impact laid a platform for the Second World War1. The war steered prosperity in some countries, whereas it led economic depression in others. Many European countries emerged out of the war with economic difficulties, dissatisfaction and disillusionment due to lack gains. Whilst economic factors caused Second World War 2 and devastating experience in the Britain, Italy and France these nations recovered economically with no much complexity. However, it was Germany which faced much of World War 2 as a result of economic factors. Coppieters & Fotion went ahead to state that the Treaty of Versailles and tension in Weimar Republic resulted to economic depression leading to war. In Italy, fascism led to war2. Therefore, this essay analyzes the extent to which Second World War in Europe was decided by the economic factors. Overview of the Second World War Emerging just after two and a half decades after the First World War, the World War 2 became by Mark regarded as the most deadliest and widespread in history of war, and involving over 30 nations across the globe and leading to in over 50 million civilian and military deaths3. Prompted by Poland invasion in 1939 by Adolf Hitler, the World War 2 dragged on for close to four years. The political, social and economic instability resulted in European leaders during the World War 1 between 1914 to18 set a platform for another global conflict; World War II which proved more devastating. Taylor & Jaworski contended that with its new leader who was rising to ranks of power, politically and economically unstable Germany, through its leader Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist (Nazi) armed the army and assented to strategic treaties with Japan and Italy to increase his desires of world supremacy4. Poland’s invasion by Hitler in 1939 instigated France and Great Britain to pronounce war on Germany, an action which resulted to World War II. The commonwealth dominion including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa followed and declared lethal war on Germany. In addition, The Western Allies started Germany’s naval blockade which intended to harm the country's war effort and economy. Germany reacted by declaring U-boat combat against its Allied warships and merchant that later became the Battle of Atlantic. Plowright claimed that in 1940, Italy, an Ally of Germany and the Axis joined the warfare. The same year, the German army waged a tough war, but eventually lost to England in a war referred to as “the Battle of Britain”5. In the next 6 years, the war resulted to destruction of property and loss of lives across the globe which was more severe compared to the previous war. Among the people who died in Europe were more than 6 million Jews who killed in Nazi camps which Hitler strategized as his “Final Solution”. Schulze opined that this mass murder came to be referred to as the Holocaust. 6The Soviets started an offensive in 1945 in a bid tom liberate western Poland and compelling Hungary which was Axis to admit defeat. Winter posited that in 1945, the Allies organized and bombed the Dresden, German city killing about 35,000 civilians7. The last Soviet offensive took place on 16 of April 1945 in which its forces encircled the Berlin, German capital. To what extent was the Second World War in Europe decided by economic factors? Historians have always acknowledged the responsibility economic factors in causing World War 2 particularly in Europe and determining its outcome. There is no misgiving that the US economic factors weighed down those of Germany, Italy, Britain, Poland, Japan and France, and many claimed that the German and other European countries made a mistake to go war with established economy and come out with nothing. For instance, minority observation disputes the dominance of economics in trouncing the Germans by linking it to tactical and strategic mistakes by Hitler. A review Adam Tooze’s article of 2006, points out to the German weak agricultural sector as one of the important reasons why Germans went to war8. The situation created Hitler’s determination and motivation to instigate war and expand German territory to the east. Hitler was obsessed concerning the backwardness of the German agricultural sector compared to the land resources and raw material Britain’s empire and of America’s continent. Tooze has made a contribution by significantly proving into the Germany economic resources shortage and their cause of aggression and finally World War 29. Tooze claimed that by 1941 the Germans became dependent on the raw materials which were majorly imported from Russia formerly USSR10. The Germans led by Hitler was of the opinion that they cannot continue relying on such resource but to invade USSR than continue paying for them. They also had in mind the once they conquered USSR, they would expand further beginning with oil mines in the Middle East. The agricultural weakness of Germany can be summarized with its low ratio based on land and labor. However, compared to other European countries, the research established that Poland and Ukraine even had less land per individual. Therefore, getting the land alone in the East side of the country alone could not take place without driving away the native farmers. Tooze revealed that the Hitler’s plan to remove the native population was to conduct Holocaust, a situation which nearly 44 million people would be killed largely from the eastern rich agricultural land11. In addition to the Third Reich history, Germans also planned to displace non-German resident of Belorussia, Poland and Ukraine who had occupied fertile lands. German citizen knew that acquire economic resources from the occupied nations, especially France after the First World War. However, French harvest reduced considerably, from 1939 to 1941. Similarly, Tsouras claimed learning the German intentions, French were demoralized to produces less products12. In addition, confiscation of French energy and Food reduced work effort of the coal miners and as some point showed an “open rebellion’ against the Germans. The economy of Germany highly relied on coal because it was use to run locomotive s which transported products from one town to the other. According to Adam, the loss is claimed to have resulted by the Treaty of Versatile13. This Treaty had terms which did not permit Germany to put charges on custom duties on the imports, hence denying the country a major source of income. Implementation of the treaty made Germany to lose its territory to France and Poland. For instance, Broadberry & Harrison stated that Alsace-Lorraine loss to France made Germany to lose ore-fields for Germany14. Just as the territory was taken away from Germans, so were the companies which were confiscated with no compensation. The territorial loss also implied a loss to the German industries which contributes significantly to the country’s GDP. Furthermore, the reparations recommended by the Treaty of Versailles severely harmed the economy of Germany. Adam claimed that the total sum of reparation at nearly $40 billion was astronomical15. The action made it hard for German economy to recover. The experience led to a weak Germany desiring to become strong and economically stable after few years. Germans saw this as a genuine opportunity to instigate for the Second World War in order to resolve its situation. Winter affirmed that the situation got worse when the country experienced the Great Depression in 1930s as the treaty led to poverty, massive unemployment, and famine16. The reparations also led to a weak German currency and inflation which resulted to poor saving culture. Prior to the First World War, Germany had grown to an industrialized country with much economic resource for its people and booming businesses. However, it depended on raw materials importation for its industries. All the importation agreement was scraped by Treaty of Versailles17. Similarly, the country growth stagnated hence lacking adequate for importation. World War II in Italy Even though, economic factors majorly caused Second World War in Germany, the same factor partly caused Italy to join the war. Mills & Rockoff stated that almost in similar situation, Italy also came from First World War with economic hardship with no gains and less role at Paris Peace Conference18. The economy of Italy was separated between an agrarian South and fairly industrial North. However, with the growth of population in Italy, the food consumption rose increased considerably that could not be supported by local production. The country had rely on imports mainly food since the agricultural production was not enough to sustain the growing population. By 1937, Italy’s population had grown to 38.9 million. Adam argued that to feed its growing population, Italy needed to import some foods, notably grain from Russia and Germany19. According to Mark, another factor which dealt Italy a blow is new immigration enforced by the US which barred Italian and other immigrants from some parts of Eastern and Southern Europe20. This means Italy and these other countries had to absorb all their citizens. The new immigration policy created negative foreign policy and relations between Italy and the US. Therefore, Italy intensified their search for new way to save their growing population and need for sufficient food and other economic resources. Jaworski & Fishback claimed that Italy, led by Benito Mussolini was of the idea if capturing some agricultural rich countries which had fertile lands for agricultural to able to sufficiently serve its population21. Italy with instruction of Mussolini attacked Albania in 1939 and Greece in 1940. The Fascist Italy had a weak economy.  Since Italy’s economy made less recovery following the First World War, Mussolini had in mind that economy was a key area to tackle if the country was to turn to a European major power. Winter argued that Mussolini understood that Italy was a poor country when compared to Britain and France after the First World War had ended in 191822. Mussolini desired to improve Italy’s economic situation and the leader’s strategy was to be carried out into a two-fold plan including attacking the trade unions’ power so as to control workers. Another approach was to set Italy war targets just the way he did with “Battle for Births”. Also, in endeavors to put Italy in economic prosperity roadmap, Harrison claimed that Benito Mussolini declared three wars consisting of the Battle of the Lira, the Battle for Grain and the Battle for Land23. Mussolini thought that with a weak lira, Italy had a bad image as they battled to become Europe super-power. Italy also depended highly on coal to run its locomotive and companies. However, the involvement in the First World War left the state with less finance to fund importation of coal. The country was in a state of disarray as far as finance is concerned. Another factor which led to Italy’s taking part in Second World War was its widespread state of unemployment. After the First World War, unemployment increased as many soldiers were discharged. The situations led to labor uproars rising from political and economic disorders created by the emergence of Communist and Socialist Movements. Mussolini’s strategy to lead his country to war and improve the situation was influenced by Russian Revolution success. Other countries which joined the war as a result of economic turmoil of the First World War were France and Britain. During the World War 1, normal trade in France and Britain was disrupted and the countries found it hard to once more trade products to their customers just as they used to do during the pre-war. This allowed the Japanese and Americans to take over of the global business. In addition, French and British governments became strongly in debt after the end of war. Andrew stated that the two countries anticipated war reparations but it never materialized24. The happenings raised tension between Britain and other countries which took part in the First World War and remained economically stable. The first reaction by the British was the declaration of war on Germany when it attacked Poland. Similarly, British entered the war to fight for its economic rich territories which it lost in the First World War to countries such as Japan and the US. Conclusion From the analysis of the topic, the easy has established the ambition and greed of various Leaders including Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini to dominate the world. The situation which befell countries also exposed countries and leaders of their weakness to steer countries strategically without relying on countries resources. For instance, the paper has realized the weaknesses of Germany, Britain, Italy and France based on their economic resources. On the other hand, the paper has found out Hitler’s trait as less wise and less strategic leader who was just greedy to control a larger territory. The greedy of such leaders led a huge loss of property and lives and hatred which drag the world from development for six years. As the 21st unfolds, the citizens of the countries must not allow their leaders to mislead them to situation which will stagnate the growth and lead to another loss. Bibliography Andrew Marr. A History of Modern Britain. London: Macmillan, 2009. Alexander, Bevin. How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: The Fatal Errors that Led to Nazi Defeat. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2000. Broadberry, Stephen & Harrison, Mark. The economics of World War I: a comparative quantitative analysis. California: Stanford University, 2005. Coppieters, Bruno & Fotion, N. Moral Constraints on War: Principles and Cases. Maryland: Lexington Books, 2008. Harrison, Mark. Resource Mobilization for World War II: The USA, UK, USSR and Germany, 1938–1945. Economic History Review 41, no. 2 (1988): 171–92. Jaworski, Taylor & Fishback, Price V. World War II. Arizona: University of Arizona, 2014. Mills, Geofrey T. & Rockoff, Hugh. The Sinews of War: Essays on the Economic History of World War II. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1993. Plowright, John. The Causes, Course, and Outcomes of World War Two. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Schulze, M.-S. Austria-Hungary’s Economy in World War I. in Broadberry, S.N. and Harrison, M. (eds.), The Economics of World War I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. London: Penguin Books, 2006. Tsouras, P.G. Hitler Triumphant: Alternate Decisions of World War II. London: Greenhill Books, 2006. Winter, Jay. The Legacy of the Great War: Ninety Years On. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2009 Read More