German expansion - Events and Responses

The question asks about the intentionalist school in the Stufenplan versus opportunism historiographical debate. This debate concerns whether Hitler had a fixed plan or improvised based on circumstances.

Hugh Trevor-Roper is the historian most closely associated with the intentionalist position. He argued that Mein Kampf (1925) set out Hitler's goals — destroying Versailles, uniting German speakers, and conquering Lebensraum in the east — and that the 1930s events were deliberate, sequential steps toward this programme.

A.J.P. Taylor is the leading opportunist interpreter, arguing Hitler had no fixed timetable. Zara Steiner emphasised Allied failure to coordinate. Ian Kershaw is associated with the 'working towards the Führer' structuralist model, distinct from either pure intentionalism or Taylor's opportunism.

Hugh Trevor-Roper fits exactly: he wrote specifically to counter Taylor's 1961 thesis and emphasised consistency across Mein Kampf, the Hossbach Memorandum, and the invasion of the USSR as proof of a premeditated plan.

The question asks which historian is most closely associated with the intentionalist/Stufenplan interpretation — the view that Hitler pursued a fixed, premeditated programme.

A.J.P. Taylor argued Hitler was an opportunist who reacted to others' weaknesses, with no fixed timetable — the opposite of intentionalism. This option can be eliminated immediately.

Zara Steiner focused on Anglo-French failure to coordinate as the decisive factor in collective security's collapse, rather than resolving the intentionalist-opportunist debate itself. This is a distinct historiographical position.

Ian Kershaw is associated with the concept of 'working towards the Führer' and a structuralist approach — not the same as Trevor-Roper's intentionalism, which focused directly on Hitler's personal, premeditated programme from Mein Kampf.

Hugh Trevor-Roper is the historian who argued Hitler followed a Stufenplan from Mein Kampf, making each challenge to the post-war settlement a deliberate step toward Lebensraum and war. This is the defining intentionalist position.

The question asks about Germany's 1926 admission to the League of Nations and the foreign minister associated with the policy of fulfilment — cooperative engagement with the post-war settlement to gradually revise it.

Gustav Stresemann was the dominant figure in Weimar foreign policy during the mid-1920s. His policy of fulfilment involved accepting Versailles obligations while working through diplomacy and international institutions to revise them, culminating in the Locarno Treaties (1925) and League membership in 1926.

Franz von Papen served briefly as Chancellor in 1932 but was not the architect of League membership. Ribbentrop was Hitler's Foreign Minister associated with the Axis. Brüning was Chancellor during the Disarmament Conference but not responsible for the 1926 admission.

Stresemann is the correct answer: his period as Foreign Minister (1923–1929) corresponds precisely to the Locarno settlement and League membership, and 'fulfilment' is the specific term associated with his approach.

The question asks which foreign minister pursued the policy of fulfilment that led to Germany joining the League of Nations in 1926.

Ribbentrop was Hitler's Foreign Minister from 1938, associated with the Anti-Comintern Pact, the Pact of Steel, and the Nazi-Soviet Pact — events in the late 1930s, not the mid-1920s League admission.

Heinrich Brüning was Chancellor from 1930–1932 and attended the Geneva Disarmament Conference, but he did not engineer Germany's League membership — that had already occurred years earlier in 1926.

Franz von Papen served briefly as Chancellor in 1932 and played a role in Hitler's appointment, but is not associated with the policy of fulfilment or the 1926 League admission.

Gustav Stresemann is the correct answer: he served as Foreign Minister from 1923 to 1929, negotiated the Locarno Treaties, and secured Germany's admission to the League under the policy of fulfilment.