Nature of totalitarian diplomacy

201 Pages·2016·8.42 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff MMoonnttaannaa
SScchhoollaarrWWoorrkkss aatt UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff MMoonnttaannaa
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, &
Graduate School
Professional Papers
1986
NNaattuurree ooff ttoottaalliittaarriiaann ddiipplloommaaccyy:: AAddoollff HHiittlleerr aanndd BBeenniittoo MMuussssoolliinnii
aass tteesstt ccaasseess
Gary Lee Frazer
The University of Montana
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Frazer, Gary Lee, "Nature of totalitarian diplomacy: Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini as test cases" (1986).
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5233.
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5233
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of
Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an
authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976
This is an unpublished manuscript in which copyright sub­
sists. Any further reprinting of its contents must be approved
BY THE AUTHOR.
Mansfield Library
University of Montana
Date : _____1
THE NATURE OF TOTALITARIAN DIPLOMACY:
ADOLF HITLER AND BENITO MUSSOLINI AS TEST CASES
by
Gary Lee Frazer
B.A., University of Montana, 1980
B.A., University of Montana, 1981
Presented in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA
1986
Approved by:
Chairman, Board of Examiners
ff£an, Gradua
UMI Number: EP40697
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
Dissertation WBIiWrig
UMI EP40697
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
iiest*
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
ABSTRACT
Frazer, Gary Lee, M.A., Spring, 1986 History
The Nature of Totalitarian Diplomacy: Adolf Hitler and Benito
Mussolini as Test Cases
Director: Paul G. Lauren, Ph.D.
The objective of this thesis is to gain a better understanding of
the vital problem of totalitarian diplomacy in relation to twentieth-
century diplomatic history by examining the manner in which Adolf
Hitler and Benito Mussolini practiced their diplomacy. By examining
government documents, diplomatic papers, diaries, memoirs and the
classic works of English language scholarship on the subject of Fascist
and Nazi diplomacy, I plan to demonstrate the differences and the
problems which totalitarian diplomacy presented to the traditional
methods of diplomacy as practiced by the Western democracies.
The differences between Hitler's and Mussolini's diplomacy and the
traditional diplomacy of the Western powers can be summarized as follows
(1) both Hitler and Mussolini possessed an extraordinary amount of
independence in the conduct of their foreign affairs as compared to
the Western leaders, (2) both dictator's regimes suffered from a lack
of professionals in their diplomatic corps, (3) neither dictator had
to consider the impact of public opinion upon his diplomacy to the
same degree as the Western diplomats, (4) both Hitler and Mussolini
held different views from the Western diplomats as to the purpose of
diplomacy in foreign affairs, and (5) neither dictator shared the
same ideological beliefs as the Western leaders.
Not only were the Western diplomats forced to adapt to the changes
in diplomatic method introduced by such modern pressures as new
elaborate departments, expanded staffs, enlarged budgets, new personnel
policies, and sophisticated inventions, but they were also forced to
confront a direct challenge to the very purpose of diplomacy which
formed the universal basis for all international negotiations. Both
Hitler and Mussolini accepted warfare as a necessary ingredient of
national policy, and they were both confident that they could achieve
their goals by the proper exercise of military force.
The failure of the Western diplomats to recognize Hitler's and
Mussolini's contempt for the values of traditional diplomatic practice,
and to counter the challenges which both Hitler and Mussolini presented
to traditional diplomacy by adopting suitable coutnermeasures, clearly
demonstrated the inability of traditional diplomacy to cope with the
unique problems which totalitarian diplomacy introduced to inter­
national relations.
For My Parents
George and Ruth Frazer
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Paul G.
Lauren, Dr. Richard R. Drake, Dr. Forest L. Grieves and Dr. Donald
Spencer for their invaluable assistance throughout the completion
of this thesis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT . . .................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS '.................................................................................iv
I. INTRODUCTION : ...................................................................... 1
II. HITLER'S DIPLOMACY ............................................................. 7
Hitler as Leader ............................................................ 8
Hitler's Racism ............................................................. 15
Lebensraum.............................................................................19
Hitler as Diplomat.............................................................22
Delegation of Authority ............................................. 26
Role of the Foreign O ffice..........................................28
Role of the M ilitary.....................................................34
Role of the P a rty ..........................................................39
Hitler's Power in Diplomatic Practices ................ 42
Limits of Hitler's Power................................ 42
Strengths of Hitler's Power ................................... 47
III. MUSSOLINI'S DIPLOMACY.................................................... 52
Mussolini as Leader............................................ 53
Territorial Expansion ................................................ 63
Mussolini as Diplomat ................................................ 69
Delegation of Authority ............................................. 75
Role of the Foreign Office ..................................... 79
Role of the M ilitary.....................................................89
Role of the P a rty ..........................................................92
v
Page
Mussolini's Power in Diplomatic Practice . . . . 97
Limits of Mussolini's Power ................................ 98
Strengths of Mussolini's Power ........................ 102
IV. GERMAN AND ITALIAN INTERVENTION IN THE
SPANISH CIVIL WAR...............................................................107
Hitler's Intervention Policies ................................ 108
Hitler's Objectives ................................................ 108
Hitler's Procedures ............................ . . . . . 112
Hitler's Results ......................................................... 115
Mussolini's Intervention Policies ........................ 116
Mussolini's Objectives ............................................. 116
Mussolini's Procedures . . . . . . .................... 119
Mussolini's Results .................... . . . . . . . 121
Diplomatic Practice in the Spanish Civil War . . 125
V. TOTALITARIAN DIPLOMACY IN PRACTICE ............................ 128
Hitler's Diplomacy in Practice ................................ 128
Mussolini's Diplomacy in Practice .................... 134
Conclusion: The Nature of Totalitarian
Diplomacy as Practiced by Adolf Hitler and
Benito Mussolini ........................................................ 140
i
End N otes...........................................................................................161
Selected Bibliography ................................................................ 178
vi
I. INTRODUCTION
In order to understand the nature of totalitarian diplomacy as
Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini practiced it, one must consider not
only the unique conduct of each dictator, but also the underlying
differences between "traditional" or "classical" diplomacy and
totalitarian diplomacy.
The classical period of diplomacy, which reached its zenith during
the nineteenth century, was characterized by certain accepted standards
which the major European nation states agreed to follow in conducting
their foreign relations. In his book, The Evolution of Diplomatic
Method, Harold Nicolson affirms that the classical period of diplomacy
was characterized by the "establishment in every European country of
a professional diplomatic service on a more or less identical model."
Moreover, according to him, the professional diplomats of each European
country "possessed similar standards of education, similar experience,
and a similar aim." They all shared a common heritage, and they all
desired the same sort of world. In short, "they all believed, what­
ever their governments might believe, that the purpose of diplomacy
was the preservation of peace.
The Great Powers of Europe--England, France, Germany, Italy, and
Russia--essentially agreed that a relative "balance of power" should
be maintained which would preserve the existing status quo on the
European continent. Moreoever, they agreed that warfare between nation
1