Key facts and dates

The period between 1933 and 1935 saw significant challenges to the post-World War I international order as Germany, under Adolf Hitler, pursued rearmament in defiance of treaties. International responses ranged from condemnation to reluctant accommodation, reflecting the complexities of maintaining peace in a tense era.

Timeline of key events

• October 1933 – Hitler withdraws Germany from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.
• March 1935 – Hitler announces the creation of the Luftwaffe and reintroduces conscription, violating the Treaty of Versailles.
• April 1935 – The Stresa Front is formed by Britain, France, and Italy to oppose German treaty violations.
• April 1935 – The League of Nations condemns German rearmament but takes no effective action.
• May 1935 – France signs the Franco-Soviet Pact, seeking security through alliance with the USSR.
• June 1935 – Britain signs the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, legitimising limited German naval rearmament.

Hitler's challenges to international agreements

In the early 1930s, Adolf Hitler took bold steps to reverse the restrictions placed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles (1919), which had limited its military capabilities after World War I. These actions directly challenged the international community and tested the resolve of European powers to maintain peace.

Key actions by Hitler

• Withdrawal from Disarmament Conference and League of Nations (October 1933) - Hitler pulled Germany out of the Geneva Disarmament Conference, rejecting negotiations for global arms reduction, and simultaneously exited the League of Nations, an organisation created to ensure collective security and peace. This signalled Germany's intent to act unilaterally.
• Announcement of the Luftwaffe and conscription (March 1935) - Defying the Treaty of Versailles, which banned Germany from having an air force and limited its army size, Hitler publicly revealed the existence of the Luftwaffe (German air force) and reinstated conscription to build a larger military. These moves were clear violations of post-war agreements.

The Stresa Front: a united response

In response to Germany's growing assertiveness, three major European powers came together to form a coalition aimed at curbing German ambitions. This alliance, though symbolically significant, revealed the challenges of unified action in the face of aggression.

Formation and aims of the Stresa Front

• Creation in April 1935 - Britain, France, and Italy met in Stresa, Italy, to form the Stresa Front, a coalition condemning Germany's violations of the Treaty of Versailles, particularly its rearmament policies.
• Key objectives - The Front pledged to maintain Austrian independence (a concern given Germany's interest in unification with Austria) and to uphold peace in Europe through collective opposition to treaty breaches.
• Significance as a statement - This alliance demonstrated a shared concern among major powers about German actions, projecting an image of unity against potential aggression.

Limitations of the Stresa Front

• Lack of military commitment - Despite the strong rhetoric, the agreement included no specific military obligations or plans for enforcement, rendering it more symbolic than practical.
• Fragility of unity - The coalition's effectiveness was soon undermined by differing national interests, as seen in subsequent British actions that contradicted the Front's purpose.

The League of Nations' ineffective condemnation

The League of Nations, established to prevent conflict and enforce international agreements, also responded to Germany's rearmament. However, its reaction highlighted the organisation's fundamental weaknesses in dealing with determined aggressors.

The League's response and shortcomings

• Condemnation in April 1935 - The League formally criticised Germany's rearmament as a violation of the Treaty of Versailles, urging member states to address the issue.
• Lack of enforcement power - The League had no military force of its own and relied on member states to take action, which they were unwilling or unable to do, rendering the condemnation ineffective.
• Erosion of credibility - This failure to act decisively further weakened the League's authority, showing its inability to enforce peace or deter treaty violations in the face of growing threats.

National responses: divisions and contradictions

Individual nations responded to German rearmament in varied ways, often driven by their own strategic priorities and domestic constraints. These responses ranged from seeking alliances to pragmatic accommodation, reflecting a lack of cohesive strategy.

France's search for security

• Alliance with the USSR (Franco-Soviet Pact, May 1935) - France, feeling directly threatened by German rearmament due to its proximity, signed a mutual assistance pact with the Soviet Union to counterbalance German power.
• Reinforcing eastern alliances - France also strengthened ties with eastern European nations like Czechoslovakia and Poland to create a network of alliances against potential German expansion.
• Challenges to effectiveness - These efforts were undermined by Britain's reluctance to commit to similar alliances, leaving France without the full support needed for a strong deterrent.

Britain's ambivalent stance

• Participation in the Stresa Front (April 1935) - Initially, Britain joined France and Italy in condemning German actions, aligning with the goal of maintaining European stability.
• Anglo-German Naval Agreement (June 1935) - Contradicting the Stresa Front's united stance, Britain independently negotiated this agreement, allowing Germany to rebuild its navy up to 35% of British naval strength. This effectively legitimised German rearmament in the naval sphere and broke the united front against treaty violations.
• Motivations for agreement - Britain sought to avoid conflict and believed that limited concessions might prevent broader German aggression, though this move was seen by others as appeasement.

Reasons for ineffective international responses

The international responses to German rearmament between 1933 and 1935 largely failed to curb Hitler's ambitions. Several underlying factors contributed to this lack of decisive action, rooted in the political, economic, and social climate of the time.

Factors behind weak responses

• Economic constraints of the Great Depression - Many countries, still recovering from the global economic crisis of the 1930s, prioritised domestic recovery over military spending or international confrontation, limiting their ability to challenge Germany.
• Military unpreparedness - European powers, particularly Britain and France, were not in a position to engage in conflict due to reduced military budgets and outdated forces, making them hesitant to provoke Germany.
• Desire to avoid another war - Memories of the devastating losses of World War I created a strong aversion to confrontation, leading to policies aimed at appeasement rather than enforcement.
• Perception of Versailles as too harsh - Some leaders and publics believed the Treaty of Versailles had been overly punitive towards Germany, fostering sympathy for limited rearmament as a means of restoring national pride.
• Hope of satisfying Germany - There was a widespread belief that allowing controlled rearmament might appease Hitler and prevent further demands, underestimating his broader expansionist goals.

Impact of weak responses on Hitler's policies

The lack of robust opposition to Germany's early treaty violations had significant consequences for European stability. It influenced Hitler's perception of international resolve and shaped his future actions.

How weak responses emboldened Hitler

• Perception of impunity - The ineffective responses, from the League's toothless condemnation to Britain's naval agreement, signalled to Hitler that major powers were unwilling to take strong action against treaty violations.
• Encouragement of further aggression - This emboldening effect led Hitler to pursue more assertive policies, such as the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, as he tested the limits of international tolerance.
• Undermining of collective security - The failure to present a united front against rearmament weakened the principle of collective security, paving the way for further challenges to the post-World War I order in the years leading to World War II.