You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Second World War was, for the Nazi regime, not an accident or a mere instrument of policy but the logical culmination of its entire ideology: the pursuit of Lebensraum in the east, the building of a racial empire, and the destruction of what it called "Judeo-Bolshevism". The war and the genocide were therefore inseparable — twin expressions of the same worldview, carried out in the same conquered territories, driven by the same racial fantasy. This lesson examines the two together: the course of the conflict and the mobilisation of German society for "total war", and the escalation of racial policy from the pre-war persecution into the systematic, state-directed murder of approximately six million European Jews, the defining crime of the regime and one of the central events of modern history. It engages the central analytical questions of each: was Germany's defeat inevitable, and if so from when; and how and why did racial policy escalate into genocide? The Holocaust must be treated throughout with full seriousness, its scale represented accurately and its reality never minimised; the historian's task is analysis and explanation — above all of causation — not the narration of atrocity.
For a breadth study running to 1989, this lesson is the terrible culmination of the nature of government and racial state threads, and it supplies the moral and political foundation of everything that follows. The catastrophe of 1939 to 1945 — total war, the devastation of German cities, the division and occupation of the country, and above all the genocide — is the reason the post-war order took the shape it did: the determination of the Federal Republic's founders to build a democracy that could never again produce such a regime; the long, difficult German reckoning with the crimes of the Nazi past (Vergangenheitsbewältigung); and the moral weight that the memory of the Holocaust carried in both German states down to reunification. Understanding the war and the genocide is therefore not the end of the Nazi story alone but the beginning of the post-war one.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 1, Option 1G (Route G): "Germany and West Germany, 1918–89" — a breadth study assessed by extended analytical essays (Sections A and B) and by the evaluation of historians' interpretations (Section C). In our teaching sequence it is the culmination of the study of the Nazi dictatorship, drawing together the ideology, structure, economy and racial policy of the previous lessons and preparing for the post-war reckoning.
Because Paper 1 rewards command of causation and judgements about contingency, keep distinguishing probability from inevitability, and keep asking how the catastrophe of the war and the genocide shaped the post-war German states. (For the precise assessment weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
The war can usefully be divided into three phases: spectacular Blitzkrieg victories; the turning point on the Eastern Front; and the long retreat to defeat.
| Phase | Key events | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Blitzkrieg, 1939–41 | Poland (Sept 1939, ~5 weeks); France and the Low Countries (May–June 1940, 6 weeks); the Battle of Britain (1940) — Germany's first failure | Rapid victories against unprepared opponents; the first check came against a sea-protected, radar-equipped Britain |
| Barbarossa and the turning point, 1941–43 | Operation Barbarossa (22 June 1941); the failure before Moscow (Dec 1941); Stalingrad (surrender Feb 1943, Axis casualties over 800,000) | The invasion of the USSR was the supreme expression of Nazi ideology and the most consequential decision of the war; Stalingrad shattered the myth of invincibility |
| Defeat, 1943–45 | Kursk (July 1943); the Allied bombing offensive; D-Day (6 June 1944); the fall of Berlin (April 1945); unconditional surrender (8 May 1945) | Germany fought the multi-front war its strategists had always dreaded, on the defensive on every front |
The invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 was the supreme expression of Nazi ideology — the war for Lebensraum and racial empire in the east — and it ultimately failed for reasons that repay analysis: the vast distances and inadequate German logistics; the unexpected resilience and immense reserves of the Soviet Union; the Russian winter; Hitler's increasing interference in operational decisions; and a fundamental underestimation of Soviet capacity to absorb losses and relocate industry beyond the Urals. The "turning point" is a classic point of debate: some historians place it at the failure before Moscow in December 1941, when the Blitzkrieg gamble for a quick victory clearly failed; others at Stalingrad; others at Kursk in July 1943. The strongest answers evaluate the candidates rather than asserting one, distinguishing the point at which Germany ceased to win from the point at which defeat became certain.
A central paradox of the German war effort is that the economy was not fully mobilised for war until comparatively late, and reached its peak of output only as defeat loomed. Under Albert Speer, appointed minister of armaments in 1942, German armaments production rose dramatically even amid intensifying bombing — the so-called "armaments miracle" (aircraft production rose from around 15,400 in 1942 to 39,800 in 1944; tank production almost trebled). Adam Tooze argues that the "miracle" has been overstated, reflecting the belated mobilisation of an economy far from fully harnessed earlier, together with the brutal exploitation of forced labour — by 1944 some 7.7 million foreign workers and prisoners of war, around a quarter of the workforce, laboured in the German economy under conditions ranging from harsh to murderous. The war economy and the regime's racial barbarism were thus directly connected. Germany's fundamental problem, on Tooze's analysis, was resource insufficiency: it could not match the combined industrial might of the United States, the Soviet Union and the British Empire, and the rising output came too late and remained too small to close the gap.
For the German people the war brought, after the early years of victory and plunder, escalating hardship and, from 1942–43, devastation from the air. Joseph Goebbels's "total war" speech of February 1943, delivered in the shadow of Stalingrad, was a masterpiece of propaganda but could not disguise the deteriorating reality. The Allied bombing offensive inflicted enormous destruction — the firestorm at Hamburg in 1943 killed more than 40,000 people, and the controversial raid on Dresden in February 1945 killed in the order of 25,000 — yet Richard Overy argues that the bombing did not, as its advocates had hoped, break German morale or halt production outright; its principal effect was rather to divert vast German resources (fighter aircraft, anti-aircraft guns, manpower) to home defence, resources then unavailable at the front. The gravest internal threat, the July 1944 bomb plot, came late and from the conservative and military establishment; Ian Kershaw, in The End (2011), argues that its failure, by eliminating the one group capable of ending the war from within, actually prolonged the conflict and the suffering it brought — and poses the haunting question of why Germany continued to fight with such cohesion long after defeat was certain.
The outbreak of war in September 1939 transformed the racial policy examined in the previous lesson, both by removing the practical and moral constraints of peacetime and by bringing millions more Jews under German control. The conquest of Poland placed the largest Jewish population in Europe within the regime's grasp, and the Jews of occupied Eastern Europe were progressively confined to ghettos — sealed, overcrowded districts in cities such as Warsaw and Łódź — under conditions of deliberate deprivation, forced labour and disease that were lethal in themselves. Historians debate how far ghettoisation was conceived from the outset as a stage on the road to murder and how far it was an improvised measure of segregation that only later fed into the genocide — a question central to the intentionalist–functionalist debate below. What is not in doubt is that the regime's escalating treatment of the conquered Jewish populations of the east formed the immediate context within which the transition to systematic mass murder took place in 1941.
The transition to systematic genocide is bound up with the invasion of the Soviet Union and the ideology of a racial war of annihilation in the east.
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| From June 1941 | Following the invasion of the USSR, the mobile killing units (Einsatzgruppen) carried out mass shootings of Jews, Communist officials and others; by the end of the campaign in this manner they had murdered in the order of 1.5 million people |
| Dec 1941 | The first dedicated extermination camp began operating at Chełmno in occupied Poland |
| 20 Jan 1942 | The Wannsee Conference brought together senior officials to coordinate the administration and logistics of the "Final Solution" across Europe |
| 1942–44 | Six extermination camps operated in occupied Poland: Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Sobibór, Bełżec, Chełmno and Majdanek |
Two features repay analytical emphasis. First, the central role of the war in the east: it was the invasion of the Soviet Union, conceived as a war of racial annihilation, that brought both the largest Jewish populations of Europe under German control and the ideological licence for total destruction; the genocide and the war were not separate developments but aspects of a single project of racial empire. Second, the breadth of the apparatus required, for the murder of millions across a continent demanded the coordinated participation of the SS, the police, the army, the bureaucracy, the railways and a host of collaborators in occupied Europe. It must be stressed that the Wannsee Conference did not initiate the genocide — killing by the Einsatzgruppen and at Chełmno was already under way — but coordinated and bureaucratised it, marking the transition to a continent-wide, systematically administered programme of murder. The scale must be represented accurately: historians estimate that approximately six million Jews were murdered, the largest numbers in occupied Poland (around three million) and the Soviet Union (around one million). Alongside the Jews, the regime also murdered large numbers of Sinti and Roma, Soviet prisoners of war, disabled people, and others; but the systematic, continent-wide, total destruction directed at the Jews remains distinct in its scale, intention and character.
This lesson hosts two great interpretative debates: over the inevitability of German defeat, and over the origins of the Holocaust and the motivation of its perpetrators. For Section C you must characterise the positions and weigh them.
On defeat, Adam Tooze comes closest to a structural determinism, arguing that Germany's resource base was fundamentally inadequate to a long war against the world's three greatest industrial powers, so that defeat was highly likely once the early gamble had failed. Richard Overy, in Why the Allies Won, resists the language of inevitability: Allied victory had to be won, through superior strategy and mobilisation and choices that could have gone otherwise. Ian Kershaw turns from why Germany lost to the equally important question of why it fought on with such discipline after defeat was certain, locating the answer in the structures of the Führer state, the grip of terror and the absence of any mechanism to end the war from within.
On the Holocaust, the central debate maps onto the wider intentionalist–functionalist division. Intentionalists (such as Lucy Dawidowicz) hold that the genocide was the realisation of a long-held intention — Hitler's antisemitism, expressed as early as Mein Kampf, as a "warrant for genocide" awaiting only the opportunity that war provided. Functionalists (pre-eminently Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen) argue that there was no single early decision or master plan; the genocide evolved through cumulative radicalisation, as rival agencies competing to solve a self-imposed "Jewish question" under the pressures of war and occupation escalated step by step from expulsion to murder. Between these poles stands the widely accepted synthesis of Ian Kershaw and Saul Friedlander: Hitler's ideology set the goal and framework, while the specific path to genocide was shaped by circumstance — the radicalising war, the conquest of vast Jewish populations in the east — and by officials "working towards the Führer".
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.