I still have numerous books of his in my library and occasionally re-read some. The European tragedy was that it was generally admitted, by most of the British, by the French when their grandeur was not involved , and by world opinion, that the Germans were morally right, that the Versailles settlements deserved to be radically revised e. Any action mutually agreed-upon by these two dictators is supposed to be a priori monstrous. He spent most of his time at Berchtesgaden, remote from events, dreaming in his old feckless way. For the first time reduced to being solely German, and it is eminently understandable that a strong movement for Anschluss with Germany should have developed. Despite such seemingly restrictive measures upon Germany, Taylor and others 4 have argued that the Versailles Treaty was ineffective, because it failed to provide an answer to the question of German power on the continent, in fact still leaving Germany in a united and strong enough position to reject Versailles from the very outset in 1919. Without hurry, without rest, the human spirit goes forth from the beginning to embody every faculty, every thought, every emotion, which belongs to it in appropriate events.
What if he operated within a national tradition formulated by Tirpitz, Hindenburg, and even Bismarck? Poland was another grotesque — or rather swollen — creature of Versailles. Back in Oxford however Taylor's involvement with Communism was to be brief due to his disgust with what he saw as the party's do-nothing approach in the General Strike of 1926. At that time no original sources were available: no cabinet minutes or papers, no Chiefs of Staff records, only more or less formal documents from the Foreign Office with very occasional minutes. History has always been my consuming passion: reading history, writing history, lecturing about history. But I am sometimes tempted to think that they talk so much about these profound forces in order to avoid doing the detailed work. In 1934 his first book, The Italian Problem in European Diplomacy 1847-49, was published.
Under the Weimar Republic we cannot assign such projects of territorial expansion to a Rathenau, a Stresemann, or a Bruening. But by writing this, he controversially opened up the question, and by the time I came to study the subject for an O-level in 1984, it was old hat, even at that basic level. It continued in the great tradition of Rapallo. Surely more than incompetence was here involved. The European tragedy was that it was generally admitted, by most of the British, by the French when their grandeur was not involved , and by world opinion, that the Germans were morally right, that the Versailles settlements deserved to be radically revised e.
Stripped of most of its territory, it found itself in a world of fluctuating currencies and tariffs and exchange controls, hardly a viable economic entity. What Hitler proposes is a territory on which 250 million Germans can be self-supporting in a hundred years time. Finally, the Slovaks, taking their cue, declared their much yearned-for independence. His time will come again. There is therefore no question of sparing Poland and we are left with the decision: to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. He became active in trade-union politics, developing his talent for speaking to audiences by often addressing hundreds in town meetings. Taylor is scathing about the incompetence of British and French statesmen.
Manchester was already familiar to him as his family's roots were in the north east of England. He may nevertheless be right, but we have no way of proving it. That is a crime, even as a Pope has said, a sin, to remain invincibly ignorant. Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. Taylor London: Yale University Press, 2000. One of the foremost historians of this period.
When Schuschnigg finally agreed to postpone the plebiscite, after seeing that other countries would not come leaping to his rescue, Hitler now had, understandably, decided that Schuschnigg could not be trusted and that Seyss-Inquart should replace him. Any yet, as recently as 1958, Prof. What I don't accept is Taylor's contention that Hitler was a statesman in the traditional mode; and a crafty patient man who awaited events and let things fall into his lap. Taylor was a supporter of the , one of whose arguments was that an unintended war brought about by accident could cause a nuclear war and the end of human civilisation. Back in Oxford however Taylor's involvement with Communism was to be brief due to his disgust with what he saw as the party's do-nothing approach in the General Strike of 1926. Taylor is also excellent in pointing out that, e. This point may be conceded, but its implication is just the opposite of what Mr.
Not that all his opinions on that event or others for that matter were infallible but that book broke the cosy postwar historiographical consensus and ushered in a new era of more intelligent and insightful analysis of that and other historical topics. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p111 Atheneum, 1961 Fawcett reprint My quote for Taylor was sourced wrong. This is the type of program that would go over like a lead balloon in the U. He was astonishingly fluid in his delivery, so obviously on top of his material, equally obviously quite pleased with himself. To say that it was nothing but a continuation of the foreign policy of previous German governments is quite untrue.
But the great excitement of the enthused Austrian crowds spurred Hitler on, to announce a total Anschluss, an act approved by the overwhelming majority of the Austrian people. This allowed him more opportunity for research whilst also involving a lessened burden of teaching duties. There are various specific points about the Taylor volume that we might note further. . It bewildered me when my old master A.