by Luke Hamilton

At the time of writing, I am entering my final-year as an undergraduate student, studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics. I was first made aware of the course through a GCSE Economics teacher, who vouched for its suitability for those who enjoy the study of multiple disciplines. Foreign Policy Analysis was my only chosen module in my second-year and I thoroughly enjoyed all aspects of it, especially the simulation conference centered around the Syria conflict.

As a component of my second-year module, PIB612 Foreign Policy Analysis, I was tasked to write a research essay which involved the discussion and application of a foreign policy analysis (FPA) method to a case. The case I selected was Nazi Foreign Policy during the 1938 Sudeten Crisis, choosing to analyse it through assessment of the cognitive processes of Adolf Hitler. Although I had studied the crisis at A Level, I was eager to apply the methodology learnt within the module to what I felt to be a pivotal moment in foreign policy history.

The Sudeten Crisis occurred in 1938 and pitted Nazi desires for the acquisition of land in Czechoslovakia against that of the British and the French who wished to limit German expansionism but above all else, stop the outbreak of war (see Smelser, 1975). The end result of the period of high tension was the Munich Agreement, which provided Germany with the Sudetenland region. The de-escalation of the conflict however would not last: the rest of Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1939 and so too was Poland later that year, which drew retaliation from the British and French. In order to best evaluate the significance of the cognitive process methodology, I undertook research into Hitler’s personal role and impact and then examined that compared to other influences, such as: broader Nazi ideology; the role played by opposing nations such Britain and France; and the importance of contextual landscapes in determining a nation’s actions. This allowed me best to determine the validity of cognitive analysis when trying to understand this specific case study.

The preceding Anschluss, the ensuing invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia, or the concluding assault on Poland may all provide a more climatic and influential sequence of events for a pre-WW2 case study than the Sudeten Crisis (see Leitz 2003, Press 2004). However, the unique traits of the crisis and the responses of the involved nations give it a distinctive twist allowing the application of various FPA methodologies, something I discovered whilst constructing my case study.

The theory of National Image (the idea that nations exist with idealized stereotypes that are culturally shared and perpetuated, see Neack, 2014) was something I learnt through the module and was then able to apply to this case study. For example, post-Treaty of Versailles Germany can be argued to have operated with a ‘siege mentality’ (Neack, 2014), with this being particularly potent during the build-up to the Munich Agreement. Furthermore, I was able to tie this methodology into the ideals of A.J.P Taylor, a historian I had studied previously, in order to further my evaluation of this FPA approach. Taylor, of course, had argued that the outbreak of the Second World War owed to less to Hitler’s deliberate designs and more to continuities in German history.

Similarly, because the Sudeten Crisis was chronologically sandwiched between the Anschluss and the invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia and later, Poland, the application of the FPA concept of ‘Past Actions Theory’ (Press, 2004) is legitimate and can help provide analytical insight. That is, evaluation of major events that pre- and proceeded the Sudeten Crisis can be interrogated to see whether there was a continuation in Nazi Foreign Policy. Having the ability to apply these concepts to this case study allowed further evaluation of the cognitive analysis methodology as they facilitate different analytical models by which to understand the driving forces of Nazi Foreign Policy.

As mentioned, I had previously studied the Sudeten Crisis and Nazi Foreign Policy during my History AS-Level, specifically the intentionalist/functionalist debate between historians such as A.J.P. Taylor and Gerhard Weinberg. Selecting this case study therefore allowed for additional learning and helped me develop skills of both conceptual and comparative methodological analysis. Taking a distinct look at Hitler’s role thanks to individual cognitive analysis was found to be the key methodological approach.

Overall, the module and this research project exposed me to alternative thought processes when analysing past events, allowing me to reassess ideas on previously studied subjects. The project also generated a greater appreciation for academic debate.

Recommended further reading:

Goda, N.J.W. (2001) ‘A. J. P. Taylor, Adolf Hitler, and the Origins of the Second World War’, The International History Review, 23(1).

Leitz, C. (2003) Nazi Foreign Policy, 1933-41. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

Neack, L. (2014) The New Foreign Policy. 3rd ed. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Inc.

Press, D.G. (2004) ‘The Credibility of Power: Assessing Threats during the “Appeasement” Crises of the 1930s’, International Security, 29(3).

Smelser, R.M. (1975) The Sudeten Problem, 1933-1938. Clinton: The Colonial Press Inc.

Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1970) The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s Germany. London: The University of Chicago Press.

Photo by Hugues Mathers on Unsplash