Summary

Hitler began rearmaming Germany immediately he came to power in 1933. Initially done in secret, it became open in 1935 when he introduced conscription and held a massive ‘Freedom to Rearm’ rally. Over the decade, Germany’s army grew from 100,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers, and its air force expanded 200-fold.

It could be argued that this rearmament increased tension hugely in 1930s Europe:

Rearmament increased international tensions in several ways. It destroyed the 1932-33 Disarmament Conference, as Germany’s demands for equal weapons led France to abandon talks, creating an arms race – France poured resources into the Maginot Line, while Britain increased spending on its air force. In Germany, rearmament made Hitler hugely popular, reducing unemployment and strengthening national pride; this encouraged him to go further, preparing Germany for war, and prioritizing ‘guns not butter’ in economic policy. Rearmament broke the Treaty of Versailles, and undermined the League of Nations and collective security. It also divided Germany’s potential enemies (leading, eg, to the collapse of the Stresa Front) whilst attracting allies such as Italy and Japan (eg the Anti-Comintern Pact, 1937). In Central Europe, Poland and Hungary also moved closer to Germany, seeking safety. Meanwhile, Hitler’s military displays, such as the bombing of Guernica in 1937, alarmed Britain and France, shifting them towards appeasement. All this makes rearmament seem very important.

But was German rearmament the MAIN cause of increased tension?

Rearmament was not the only factor increasing tensions in the 1930s. Even before 1935, Hitler had used violence and intimidation during the Saar plebiscite (1935), and he used the same tactic in Austria (1934), Sudetenland (1938) and Danzig (1939 … where it led directly to WWII). He also pursued open aggression – reoccupying the Rhineland (1936), annexing Austria (1938), and dismantling Czechoslovakia (1939); each of which brought Europe to the edge of war. Beyond Germany, meanwhile, other events were raising tensions: Japan’s invasion of Manchuria (1931) and China (1937), Mussolini’s conquest of Abyssinia (1935), and particularly the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), which was a proxy war for and against fascism. The wider economic crisis and ideological conflict (between fascism, communism, and democracy) also created a climate of aggression and conflict.

Thus rearmament played a role in increasing tensions, but Hitler’s Germany pursued many other aggressive policies, and other nations and factors contributed to instability. However, rearmament was the START of Hitler’s expansionism, and also its BASIS – it gave him the power to take risks and pursue expansion.

Therefore, whilst not a direct cause of any great tension or conflict, Hitler's rearmament underlay it all.

‘German rearmament was the main cause of increased tension in Europe before the Second World War.’ How far do you agree with this statement?

It could be argued that Hitler's policy of rearmament began in 1933 at the League of Nations Disarmament Conference, where he demanded gleichberechtigung (“equality of armaments”) with other nations. It was a statement of intent and, immediately on coming to power, he began to rearm Germany covertly -- recruiting strong young men who marched with spades (not yet rifles) under cover of the Reicharbeitsdienst (Reich Labour Service), and forming gliding clubs to train future pilots. In 1935, under cover of the Abyssinian crisis, he took his chance, introduced conscription and held a huge ‘Freedom to Rearm’ military rally. Over the period 1932-39, the number of soldiers grew tenfold from 100,000 to a million, and the number of airplanes grew 200-fold from 36 to 8250.

It could be argued that this rearmament increased tension hugely in 1930s Europe:

It wrecked the Disarmament Conference of 1932-33; indeed British attempts to persuade Germany to return to the negotiations so angered French foreign minister Louis Barthou that France also left the Conference, announcing that they would hereon look after their own security. The further consequence was a rearmaments race in Western Europe as France (disastrously as it turned out) poured money into the Maginot line. In 1936, even Britain doubled its spending on the RAF: “in an arming world, we couldn't be the only great nation disarmed,” announced Neville Chamberlain in a newsreel to the British people.

Rearmament made Hitler very popular in Germany – it reduced unemployment, strengthened Germany … and he had defied the hated Treaty of Versailles. He was thus encouraged to go further, faster. Hitler saw rearmament as part of training/readying the German people for war: “He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight has not the right to exist” he told them, building his economic policy (Autarky) around rearmament and declaring ‘guns not butter’ as its aim. Thus rearmament gave Hitler the mandate for further rearmament.

Rearmament was Hitler’s first breaching of the Treaty of Versailles. Although by this time few people in Europe held to the treaty, this had a tremendous psychological significance; it declared that a new world order was being built, with principles very different from the principles of the Peace of 1919. At the same time it destroyed the ideal of collective security, which was that nations did not need weapons and war, but could rely on discussion, arbitration, and the support of the rest of the world. At the same time it therefore undermined the League of Nations.

It divided Germany's opponents – the Anglo German naval agreement (Britain’s response to the reality of Hitler's rearmament) infuriated France, and so damaged the 'Stresa Front' that Mussolini changed sides and in 1936 signed a secret protocol with Hitler aligning their foreign policies.

Rearmament led to other significant diplomatic outfalls – it encouraged and attracted other revisionist powers, notably Italy and Japan in the 1937 Anti-Comintern Pact. Other central European countries aligned themselves with Germany (Poland, 1934; Hungary, 1937; Slovakia, 1939) in the (false) hope of safety. Hitler realised that rearmament was increasing hostility, so he countenanced these pacts … partly as a way of strengthening Germany by other means, but mainly to buy time to prepare for war – the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 being the culmination of that policy.

Meanwhile, Hitler’s rearmament – particularly when they saw its results at Guernica in 1937 – alarmed the rest of the world, particularly France and Britain. This upended international diplomacy as nations abandoned collective security, tried to form counter-alliances (notably the Stresa Front, 1935) and, failing that, resorted to appeasement, with its climax at Munich.

So we can see how it might be suggested that German rearmament was a significant cause of increased tension in Europe before the Second World War.

But was German rearmament the MAIN cause of increased tension? There were other factors involved. How does rearmament measure up against them as a cause of tension?

The Saar plebiscite pre-dated the ‘Freedom to Rearm’ rally by two months and was itself preceded by months of violent election-rigging … to the point where Britain threatened to send a peace-keeping force. It validated Hitler's regime, encouraged Hitler's expansionism and demonstrated the impotence of the League of Nations in the face of Nazi violence, and is cited by many historians as the first step to WWII. In the Dollfuss affair in Austria (1934), the Sudetenland (1938) and Danzig (1939), Hitler similarly used violence by Nazi nationalists to put diplomatic pressure on his opponents – the riots in Danzig led directly to World War, so how’s that for a cause of tension! These events at least prove that rearmament was only one of a swathe of different policies pursued by Hitler which increased international tension.

At the same time, in his reoccupation of the Rhineland (1936), Anschluss with Austria (1938) and occupation of Czechoslovakia (1939) Hitler did not recoil from using naked military force to achieve his goals. These events all broke the ToV and humiliated the LoN. They were all a ‘step further’ towards war and – as Chamberlain said of Czechoslovakia, a “shock to confidence”. Surely these outright aggressions created greater tension than passive rearmament? If we are to measure ‘tension’ in terms of ‘how near to conflict’ Europe came, what about the Bad Godesberg Conference (22 September 1938), when Chamberlain refused Hitler’s demands, returned to Britain, and began to prepare for war; Britain did not return from the AGNA celebrating ‘peace in our time’.

Moreover, we need to remember that there were other events threatening the security of the world in the 1930s. Japan was building its Co-Prosperity Sphere, and the Manchuria crisis (1931-32)and invasion of China (1937) created open warfare in the far east. Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia in 1935 wrecked the League and plunged East Africa into war. The Spanish Civil War (1936-39) was a full-on proxy war in which Franco was supported by Germany, Italy, Portugal and Eire, whilst the Republicans drew support from the USSR, Mexico, France (unofficially) and volunteer ‘international brigades’ from the UK, USA, France and Canada.

And that is before we start analysing the impact of wider forces, such as the Great Depression (which made many countries other than Japan, Italy and Germany anxious to get more land and power, and more aggressive on behalf of their nation’s interests), and the clash of competing ideologies (fascism, communism, liberal democracy) all of which focussed their differences into a battle of light versus darkness, good versus evil. “War is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embarked on it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake”, said Chamberlain on 27 September 1938. Not until a year later did an issue great enough for war occur, and it was not rearmament.

So, how far might we agree that German rearmament was the main cause of increased tension in Europe before 1939? We have seen that Hitler’s rearmament wrecked the disarmament conference, the idea of collective security, the League of Nations and the unity of Germany's opponents, and that it encouraged others to join him in attacking the ToV and pursuing expansionist policies.

However we have seen that Hitler’s Germany was pursuing also other policies and aggressions which increased tension, that Germany was not the only country doing so, and that all this was happening in a climate of economic disaster and ideological conflict. Against these factors it might seem that rearmament was a minor issue in causing tension.

Yet it is undeniable that rearmament was the START of Hitler's militaristic foreign policy, and also that a strong military power was the BASIS of all his confident aggressions throughout the 1930s. Therefore we might conclude that, although not a direct cause of any great tension or conflict, Hitler's rearmament underlay it all.

Going Deeper

The following link will help you improve your essay-writing:

How to do this AQA ‘How far do you agree’ question